Detailed Action
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. If this application names joint inventors, Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 2007/0060452 A1) in view of Saleh (US 2015/0290517 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chang discloses a system for restricting user movements in an aquatic medium (Abstract) comprising a flexibly resilient member (114) having a first end designed to be connected to a user (112) and a second end designed to be anchored by means of a system of supports (111) such as to allow the resilient member to move in its entirety, without being deformed (Fig. 1: spring 113 allows up and down motion), in such a manner that elevation of the resilient member end designed to be connected to the user, varies as the user position depth varies when swimming along the water surface (as best understood, system of Fig. 1 can perform this function) that any substantial displacement of the user in any horizontal direction causes the resilient member to flex (¶ [0021]: elastic tube comprises an elastic material such as … rubber and/or elastic fibers … therefore it is reasonable to infer that substantial horizonal displacement would cause at least some degree of flex of the elastic tube). Saleh suggests—where Chang does not disclose—wherein the system of supports is disposed to rotationally move about an approximately horizontal axis distant from a swimming zone center (¶ [0025]: proximal end is coupled to base which may further comprise a hinge affixed to the bottom of the boom which will facilitate adjusting the height of proximal end and the angle at which boom is positioned). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Chang and Saleh in order to allow additional degrees of movement freedom for the swimmer, thus promoting a more natural swimming stroke.
Regarding claim 4, Chang discloses wherein the resilient member is disposed to translationally move along an approximately vertical axis (Fig. 1: spring 113 allows up and down motion).
Regarding claim 5, Chang discloses wherein the resilient member is slidingly coupled to a system of at least two supports resting on distinct points distant from the swimming zone center (Figs. 3A – 3C).
Regarding claim 6, Chang discloses wherein the resilient member is designed to be connected to the user via a module secured on the user's body or hand-held by the user (10).
Regarding claim 8, Chang discloses wherein the resilient member is connected to the user via an intermediary element providing for the user rotational mobility about the resilient member (Figs. 4A – 4B).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Saleh and Fuller (US 11,097,177 B1).
Regarding claim 9, Fuller suggests—where Chang does not disclose—wherein the system is used for virtual reality simulation systems (col. 17 line 12: controller may connect to circuitry of a snorkel mask configured to display virtual reality imagery). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Chang, Saleh and Fuller in order to use the system for teaching or training purposes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. NOTE: if Applicant chooses to incorporate the subject matter of either claim 3 or claim 7 into the independent claim, the dependent claim should be noted as (Cancelled) on the amended claim sheet rather than (Withdrawn).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-9 under 35 USC § 112 (b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, the indicated allowability of claim 2 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Saleh.
Conclusion
The prior art considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and not relied upon is made of record on the attached PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE ROWLAND whose telephone number is (469) 295-9129. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 10-8. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Applicant may choose, at his or her discretion, to correspond with Examiner via Internet e-mail. A paper copy of any and all email correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application file. Email communication must be authorized in advance. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via e-mail to any correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122.
Authorization may be perfected by submitting, on a separate paper, the following (or similar) disclaimer:
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See MPEP 502.03 for more information.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVE ROWLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715