DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claims 1-5, 10-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richey US 6,220,910 in view of Takeda US 4,986,700.
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 1- Richey Figure 4)]
PNG
media_image1.png
327
200
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Richey discloses a safety flag assembly for a life jacket, the safety flag assembly comprising:
a signaling device 12 comprising a pole 30 and a flag 32 coupled to a first end of the pole, and a gripping feature coupled to a second end of the pole;
a pouch 10 defining an opening 14 providing access to an interior pocket of the pouch, the interior pocket sized to receive the pole and flag of the signaling device therein; and
a coupling feature 16, 17 configured to attach the pouch to a back panel of the life jacket 40, wherein, when the pouch is attached to the life jacket and the signaling device is received within the pouch, a second end of the pole is accessible to a user wearing the life jacket to facilitate the user removing the signaling device from the pouch (column 4 lines 1-4).
Richey does not teach that the gripping feature has a size greater than the opening of the pouch to restrict insertion of the gripping feature into the interior pocket, such that the gripping feature is positioned outside of the interior pocket. Takeda teaches a marine buoyancy vest 2 which comprises a pull tab 25 which is retained in a pocket 26, the pull tab having a gripping feature 27 of a size greater than the opening of the pouch to restrict insertion of the gripping feature into the interior pocket, such that the gripping feature is positioned outside of the interior pocket. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the handle of Richey with a gripping feature as taught by Takeda in order to ensure that the end of the handle can be easily located by touch and does not become lost in the pocket.
Regarding claim 10, Richey discloses a life jacket 40 comprising:
at least one buoyant panel; and
a safety flag assembly connected to the at least one buoyant panel, the safety flag assembly comprising:
a signaling device 12 comprising a pole 30 and a flag 32 coupled to a first end of the pole, and a gripping feature coupled to a second end of the pole;
a pouch 10 defining an opening 14 providing access to an interior pocket of the pouch, the interior pocket sized to receive the pole and flag of the signaling device therein; and
a coupling feature 16, 17 configured to attach the pouch to the at least one buoyant panel, wherein, when the pouch is attached to the life jacket and the signaling device is received within the pouch, a second end of the pole is accessible to a user wearing the life jacket to facilitate the user removing the signaling device from the pouch (column 4 lines 1-4).
Richey does not teach that the gripping feature has a size greater than the opening of the pouch to restrict insertion of the gripping feature into the interior pocket, such that the gripping feature is positioned outside of the interior pocket. Takeda teaches a marine buoyancy vest 2 which comprises a pull tab 25 which is retained in a pocket 26, the pull tab having a gripping feature 27 of a size greater than the opening of the pouch to restrict insertion of the gripping feature into the interior pocket, such that the gripping feature is positioned outside of the interior pocket. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the handle of Richey with a gripping feature as taught by Takeda in order to ensure that the end of the handle can be easily located by touch and does not become lost in the pocket.
Regarding claim 17, Richey discloses a life jacket 40 comprising:
at least one buoyant panel; and
a safety flag assembly connected to the at least one buoyant panel, the safety flag assembly comprising:
a signaling device 12 comprising a pole 30 and a flag 32 coupled to a first end of the pole, and a gripping feature coupled to a second end of the pole; and
a pouch 10 removably attached to the at least one buoyant panel, the pouch defining an opening 14 providing access to an interior pocket, the interior pocket sized to receive the pole and flag of the signaling device therein, wherein a second end of the pole is accessible to a user wearing the life jacket to facilitate the user removing the signaling device from the pouch.
Richey does not teach that the gripping feature has a size greater than the opening of the pouch to restrict insertion of the gripping feature into the interior pocket, such that the gripping feature is positioned outside of the interior pocket. Takeda teaches a marine buoyancy vest 2 which comprises a pull tab 25 which is retained in a pocket 26, the pull tab having a gripping feature 27 of a size greater than the opening of the pouch to restrict insertion of the gripping feature into the interior pocket, such that the gripping feature is positioned outside of the interior pocket. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the handle of Richey with a gripping feature as taught by Takeda in order to ensure that the end of the handle can be easily located by touch and does not become lost in the pocket.
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Richey and Takeda teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 1 and 10. Richey also teaches that the pouch includes an access flap 14 defining the opening, and as modified by Takeda the second end of the pole extends through the opening. Richey does not teach that the access flap extends onto an upper portion of a front panel of the life jacket, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the pouch on an upper portion of a front panel of the life jacket in order to make it more easily accessible or keep it above water, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Richey and Takeda teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 2 and 11. Takeda also teaches that the gripping feature 27 has a spherical shape and protrudes through the opening. Takeda does not teach that the gripping feature is positively buoyant to cause floatation of the signaling device in water. Richey teaches that the signaling device 12 is positively buoyant to cause floatation of the signaling device in water (column 4, lines 7-8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the handle entire handle of Richey and Takeda to be buoyant as taught by Richey in order to reduce the possibility of the signal device sinking.
Regarding claims 4, 13 and 19, Richey and Takeda teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 1, 10 and 17. Richey also teaches that the pole 30 is adjustable between a stowed configuration in which the pole is sized and shaped to facilitate receiving the signaling device within the interior pocket 10, and a straightened deployed configuration (column 3, lines 42-64).
Regarding claims 5, 14, 18 and 20 Richey and Takeda teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 1, 10 and 17. Richey also teaches that the pole 30 is at least partially constructed from a flexible material to facilitate conforming the pole to a shape of the pouch 10 when in a stored configuration and maintain a straightened configuration when removed from the pouch (column 3, lines 42-64).
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richey US 6,220,910 in view of Takeda US 4,986,700 and French US 4,986,784.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Richey and Takeda teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 5 and 14. Richey also teaches a flexible spine, but does not teach a foam outer layer. French teaches a water sport device which comprises a rod 21 which includes a foam outer layer and a flexible spine positioned within the foam outer layer (column 5, lines 24-31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the flag pole of Richey by coating it in a foam layer as taught by French in order to make the pole float and/or less susceptible to damage.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richey US 6,220,910 in view of Takeda US 4,986,700 and Quillmann US 10,258,137.
Regarding claim 8, Richey and Takeda teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Richey does not teach that the coupling feature includes a clip. Quillmann teaches a pouch 10 with a coupling feature, the coupling feature including a clip 20, the clip including a first lever 22a, a second lever 22b, and a hinge 24a, wherein a clamping force secures the pouch to an article. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the pouch of Richey with a clip coupling as taught by Quillmann in order to enable the device to be clipped to any edge of the life jacket without the need for a mating fastener.
Regarding claim 9, Richey, Takeda and Quillmann teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. Quillmann also teaches that at least one of the first lever 22a or the second lever 22b further includes a plurality of retaining features 43, 26. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the pouch of Richey with a clip coupling and retaining features as taught by Quillmann in order to enable the device to be clipped to any edge of the life jacket without the need for a mating fastener.
Claims 1-3, 10-12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ely US 6,033,275 in view of Takeda US 4,986,700.
Regarding claim 1, Ely discloses a safety flag assembly for a life jacket, the safety flag assembly comprising:
a signaling device 28 comprising a pole 62 and a flag 66 coupled to a first end of the pole, and a gripping feature coupled to a second end of the pole;
a pouch 50 defining an opening 54 providing access to an interior pocket of the pouch, the interior pocket sized to receive the pole and flag of the signaling device therein; and
a coupling feature configured to attach the pouch to a back panel of the life jacket, wherein, when the pouch is attached to the life jacket and the signaling device is received within the pouch, a second end of the pole is accessible to a user wearing the life jacket to facilitate the user removing the signaling device from the pouch.
PNG
media_image2.png
338
399
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
308
222
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 2- Ely Figures 1 and 3
Ely does not teach that the gripping feature has a size greater than the opening of the pouch to restrict insertion of the gripping feature into the interior pocket, such that the gripping feature is positioned outside of the interior pocket. Takeda teaches a marine buoyancy vest 2 which comprises a pull tab 25 which is retained in a pocket 26, the pull tab having a gripping feature 27 of a size greater than the opening of the pouch to restrict insertion of the gripping feature into the interior pocket, such that the gripping feature is positioned outside of the interior pocket. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the handle of Ely with a gripping feature as taught by Takeda in order to ensure that the end of the handle can be easily located by touch and does not become lost in the pocket.
Regarding claim 10, Ely discloses a life jacket 26 comprising:
at least one buoyant panel 46; and
a safety flag assembly connected to the at least one buoyant panel, the safety flag assembly comprising:
a signaling device 28 comprising a pole 62 and a flag 66 coupled to a first end of the pole, and a gripping feature coupled to a second end of the pole;
a pouch 50 defining an opening 54 providing access to an interior pocket of the pouch, the interior pocket sized to receive the pole and flag of the signaling device therein; and
a coupling feature configured to attach the pouch to the at least one buoyant panel, wherein, when the pouch is attached to the life jacket and the signaling device is received within the pouch, a second end of the pole is accessible to a user wearing the life jacket to facilitate the user removing the signaling device from the pouch.
Ely does not teach that the gripping feature has a size greater than the opening of the pouch to restrict insertion of the gripping feature into the interior pocket, such that the gripping feature is positioned outside of the interior pocket. Takeda teaches a marine buoyancy vest 2 which comprises a pull tab 25 which is retained in a pocket 26, the pull tab having a gripping feature 27 of a size greater than the opening of the pouch to restrict insertion of the gripping feature into the interior pocket, such that the gripping feature is positioned outside of the interior pocket. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the handle of Ely with a gripping feature as taught by Takeda in order to ensure that the end of the handle can be easily located by touch and does not become lost in the pocket.
Regarding claim 17, Ely discloses a life jacket 26 comprising:
at least one buoyant panel 46; and
a safety flag assembly connected to the at least one buoyant panel, the safety flag assembly comprising:
a signaling device 28 comprising a pole 62 and a flag 66 coupled to a first end of the pole, and a gripping feature coupled to a second end of the pole; and
a pouch removably (as everything is removable) attached to the at least one buoyant panel, the pouch defining an opening providing access to an interior pocket, the interior pocket sized to receive the signaling device therein, wherein a second end of the pole is accessible to a user wearing the life jacket to facilitate the user removing the signaling device from the pouch.
Ely does not teach that the gripping feature has a size greater than the opening of the pouch to restrict insertion of the gripping feature into the interior pocket, such that the gripping feature is positioned outside of the interior pocket. Takeda teaches a marine buoyancy vest 2 which comprises a pull tab 25 which is retained in a pocket 26, the pull tab having a gripping feature 27 of a size greater than the opening of the pouch to restrict insertion of the gripping feature into the interior pocket, such that the gripping feature is positioned outside of the interior pocket. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the handle of Ely with a gripping feature as taught by Takeda in order to ensure that the end of the handle can be easily located by touch and does not become lost in the pocket.
In an alternate interpretation, Ely does not teach that the pouch is removably attached. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the pouch removable in order to detach it easier for replacement or when it is not needed, since it has been held that if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to a first component to which a second component is applied, it would be obvious to make the second component removable for that purpose. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349.
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Ely and Takeda teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 1 and 10. Ely also teaches that the pouch includes an access flap 56 (or the free portion of the pocket opening) defining the opening, the second end of the pole 62 extends through the opening 54, wherein the access flap extends onto an upper portion of a front panel of the life jacket 24. If applicant disagrees, then it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the access flap on an upper portion of a front panel of the life jacket in order to make access easier, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Ely and Takeda teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 2 and 11. Takeda also teaches that the gripping feature 27 has a spherical shape and protrudes through the opening. Neither Ely nor Takeda teach that the gripping feature is positively buoyant to cause floatation of the signaling device in water. The examiner is taking official notice that it is well-known to make aquatic equipment buoyant. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the handle of Ely and Takeda buoyant in order to reduce the possibility of the signal device sinking.
Claims 4-5, 13-14 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ely US 6,033,275 in view of Takeda US 4,986,700 and Richey US 6,220,910.
Regarding claims 4, 13 and 19, Ely and Takeda teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 1, 10 and 17. Ely does not teach that the pole has different stowed and deployed configurations.
Richey teaches that the pole 30 is adjustable between a stowed configuration in which the pole is sized and shaped to facilitate receiving the signaling device within the interior pocket 10, and a straightened deployed configuration (column 3, lines 42-64). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the flag pole of Ely by making it collapsable as taught by Richey in order to enable the pole to be longer for better visibility and/or the pouch smaller for better comfort.
Regarding claims 5, 14, 18 and 20 Ely and Takeda teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 1, 10 and 17. Ely does not teach that the pole is flexible.
Richey teaches that the pole 30 is at least partially constructed from a flexible material to facilitate conforming the pole to a shape of the pouch 10 when in a stored configuration and maintain a straightened configuration when removed from the pouch (column 3, lines 42-64). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the flag pole of Ely by making it collapsable as taught by Richey in order to enable the pole to be longer for better visibility and/or the pouch smaller for better comfort.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ely US 6,033,275 in view of Takeda US 4,986,700, Richey US 6,220,910 and French US 4,986,784.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Ely, Takeda and Richey teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 5 and 14. Ely and Richey also teach a flexible spine, but do not teach a foam outer layer. French teaches a water sport device which comprises a rod 21 which includes a foam outer layer and a flexible spine positioned within the foam outer layer (column 5, lines 24-31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the flag pole of Ely and Richey by coating it in a foam layer as taught by French in order to make the pole float and/or less susceptible to damage.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ely US 6,033,275 in view of Takeda US 4,986,700 and Quillmann US 10,258,137.
Regarding claim 8, Ely and Takeda teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Ely does not teach that the coupling feature includes a clip. Quillmann teaches a pouch 10 with a coupling feature, the coupling feature including a clip 20, the clip including a first lever 22a, a second lever 22b, and a hinge 24a, wherein a clamping force secures the pouch to an article. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the pouch of Ely with a clip coupling as taught by Quillmann in order to make the device easier to replace or exchange. As modified, the clip secures the safety flag assembly to the life jacket.
Regarding claim 9, Ely, Takeda and Quillmann teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. Quillmann also teaches that at least one of the first lever 22a or the second lever 22b further includes a plurality of retaining features 43, 26. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the pouch of Ely with a clip coupling and retaining features as taught by Quillmann in order to make the device easier to replace or exchange.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 10 and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mack US 2,943,775 teaches a vest in which a pull handle extends from a pocket and comprises a ball grip.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marc Burgess whose telephone number is (571)272-9385. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 08:30-15:00.
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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marc Jimenez can be reached at 517 272-4530. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/MARC BURGESS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615