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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the zipper along a/the bottom layer of claims 10 and 12 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim requires “obtaining a sound-absorbing material; inserting the sound-absorbing material in an encasing that comprises a first layer and a second layer,” then the claim further requires that “the encasing further comprising at least one of an air gap or a sound absorbing layer;” It is unclear if the claimed “a sound absorbing layer” is the same or different than the previously claimed “a/the sound-absorbing material” that is inserted in an encasing that comprises a first and second layer. While the verbiage is different (i.e. material/layer), the disclosure does not appear to support a sound absorbing layer that is provided in additional to the sound absorbing material inserted in the encasing, as the term “sound absorbing layer” is not provided in the disclosure. For the rejection, the Examiner will interpret the sound-absorbing material that is inserted in an encasing that comprises a first layer and a second layer and the sound absorbing layer as being the same thing.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “wherein sound-absorbing material provides a decibel reduction of at least 10 dB when struck by an external force” is indefinite, as there is no limiting definition of “an external force”. Using the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), an external force could include any force from a heavy impact to a gentle pressing or touching against the sound absorbing material. A gentle touch or press would generate a very minor or possibly imperceptible sound, that may not even be 10 decibels (db), let alone a sound that could be reduced by 10 db by the sound absorbing material relative to a sound that would be present without the sound absorbing material. Additionally, Applicant has not established a level of impact of the claimed external force having a baseline sound decibel level from which the sound could be reduced by 10 db. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-3, 6-9, 11, 13-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez (2013/0072358 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Martinez teaches a method for making a sound absorber (Figures 1-4, #1) for a punching bag (unlabeled, but clearly seen in Figures 3-4 – [0009]), the method comprising: obtaining a sound-absorbing material (3, [0010] – note neoprene is a material well known to be a sound absorber); inserting the sound-absorbing material (3) in an encasing (2/4) that comprises a first layer (2) and a second layer (4), the first layer (2) is an inner layer of the encasing and the second layer (4) is an outer layer of the encasing, the second layer (4) comprising a top edge and a bottom edge that are located at opposite ends of the second layer (top and bottom edges of layer #2 clearly seen), the encasing (2/4) further comprising at least one of an air gap or a sound absorbing layer (3); and placing the encasing (2/4) in contact with an outer layer of the punching bag (unlabeled, but clearly seen in Figures 3-4 – [0009]) such that the sound-absorbing material (3), in response to the second layer (4) being struck, obviously produces a dampened sound that is relatively less loud than a non-dampened sound that is produced when the outer layer is struck directly. It is considered to be obvious that the material #1 will function produce “a dampened sound that is relatively less loud than a non-dampened sound that is produced when the outer layer is struck directly” in the same way as Applicant’s as both the claimed invention and the Martinez material are structurally identical and will function in a similar manner. Further, the term “relatively less loud” is vague and open to interpretation, and could include any level of sound difference, even if very small.
With respect to claim 2, Martinez teaches wherein sound-absorbing material (3) obviously provides a decibel reduction of at least 10 dB when struck by an external force in the same way as Applicant’s (note the 112b rejection above”.
With respect to claim 3, Martinez teaches wherein the first layer (2) and the second layer (4) are substantially parallel to each other.
With respect to claims 6 and 7, Martinez teaches the method for making the sound absorber of claim 1.
Martinez fails to teach the sound-absorbing material comprises a knit or woven fabric; wherein the fabric comprises a combination of chemical and natural fibers.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the sound-absorbing material comprises a knit or woven fabric; wherein the fabric comprises a combination of chemical and natural fibers, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In this case, selecting a sound-absorbing material comprises a knit or woven fabric; wherein the fabric comprises a combination of chemical and natural fibers would have been well known and obvious to one of ordinary skill.
With respect to claim 8, Martinez teaches wherein the encasing (2/4) encases the sound-absorbing material (3). Although Martinez does not explicitly state whether or not the edges of the rubber sheet #3 are covered; however, official notice is taken that it is well known in the art to fully encapsulate neoprene sheets such as that taught by Martinez so as to protect the core layer from intrusion liquids, contaminants, etc.
With respect to claim 9, Martinez teaches wherein the sound-absorbing material (3) is substantially evenly distributed within the encasing (2/4).
With respect to claim 11, Martinez teaches sound absorber (Figures 1-4, #1) comprising: a sound-absorbing material 3, [0010] – note neoprene is a material well known to be a sound absorber); and an encasing (2/4) comprising a first layer (2) and a second layer (4) that encase the sound-absorbing material (3), the first layer (2) is an inner layer and the second layer (4) is an outer layer, the second layer (4) comprising: a top edge and a bottom edge that are located at opposite ends of the first second layer (2 – note that top and bottom edges of layer #2 clearly seen), wherein in response to being placed in contact with an outer layer of a punching bag (unlabeled, but clearly seen in Figures 3-4 – [0009]) and in response to the second layer (4) being struck, the sound absorber (1) obviously produces a dampened sound that is relatively less loud than a sound produced when the outer layer is struck directly. It is considered to be obvious that the material #1 will function produce “a dampened sound that is relatively less loud than a sound produced when the outer layer is struck directly” in the same way as Applicant’s as both the claimed invention and the Martinez material are structurally identical and will function in a similar manner. Further, the term “relatively less loud” is vague and open to interpretation, and could include any level of sound difference, even if very small.
With respect to claim 13, Martinez teaches wherein the encasing (2/4) encases the sound-absorbing material (3). Although Martinez does not explicitly state whether or not the edges of the rubber sheet #3 are covered; however, official notice is taken that it is well known in the art to fully encapsulate neoprene sheets such as that taught by Martinez so as to protect the core layer from intrusion liquids, contaminants, etc.
With respect to claim 14, Martinez teaches wherein the sound-absorbing material (3) is substantially evenly distributed within the encasing (2/4).
With respect to claim 15, Martinez teaches wherein the first layer (2) and the second layer (4) are substantially parallel to each other.
With respect to claims 17 and 18, Martinez teaches the sound absorber of claim 11.
Martinez fails to teach the sound-absorbing material comprises a knit or woven fabric; wherein the fabric comprises a combination of chemical and natural fibers.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the sound-absorbing material comprises a knit or woven fabric; wherein the fabric comprises a combination of chemical and natural fibers, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In this case, selecting a sound-absorbing material comprises a knit or woven fabric; wherein the fabric comprises a combination of chemical and natural fibers would have been well known and obvious to one of ordinary skill.
Claims 4-5, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez (2013/0072358 A1) in view of Laudenslager (US 6,994,658).
With respect to claims 4 and 16, Martinez teaches the method for making the sound absorber of claim 1, and the sound absorber of claim 11.
Martinez fails to teach wherein the encasing further comprises a top layer and a bottom layer that are affixed by seams, along their edges, to the respective top edge and bottom edge of the second layer.
However, Laudenslager, in the same field of endeavor, does teach a cover with a top and bottom layer, affixed by seams, along their edges, to the respective top edge and bottom edge of the second layer when combined (cover - Figure 1, #21; Col. 2 Lines 49-51).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to modify the apparatus of Martinez as in Laudenslager such that it completely encloses the sheath as to provide protection from abrasion on the top and bottom as well as the sides.
With respect to claims 5 and 19, the combination of Martinez and Laudenslager using/in response to the encasing (Martinez, #2/4) to at least partially encircle the punching bag such that the top layer (of Laudenslager, when combined) and the bottom layer (of Laudenslager, when combined) are substantially parallel to each other.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez (2013/0072358 A1) in view of Siklosi (9,414,649).
With respect to claim 12, Martinez teaches the sound absorber of claim 11.
Martinez fails to teach wherein the encasing comprises a zipper along a bottom layer.
However, Siklosi, in the same field of endeavor, does teach wherein a similar punching bag encasing/cover (Figures 1-4, #1) comprises a zipper (3) along a bottom layer (10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Martinez, with the apparatus of Siklosi such that the encasing is firmly stretched over the foam (similar to sheet #1 of Martinez) with no wrinkles and firmly to the base so that the rebounding properties of the foam (similar to sheet #1 of Martinez) are consistent when struck by the user.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez (2013/0072358 A1) in view of Laudenslager (US 6,994,658), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Siklosi (9,414,649).
With respect to claim 10, Martinez teaches the method for making the sound absorber of claim 1.
Martinez fails to teach wherein the encasing comprises a zipper along the bottom layer.
However, Siklosi, in the same field of endeavor, does teach wherein a similar punching bag encasing/cover (Figures 1-4, #1) comprises a zipper (3) along the bottom layer (10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Martinez as modified, with the apparatus of Siklosi such that the encasing is firmly stretched over the foam (similar to sheet #1 of Martinez) with no wrinkles and firmly to the base so that the rebounding properties of the foam (similar to sheet #1 of Martinez) are consistent when struck by the user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-19 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. The Examiner considers Martinez and the obvious combination with Laudenslager and Siklosi to teach all of the limitations as claimed by Applicant.
Conclusion
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 JEREMY AUSTIN LUKS whose telephone number is (571)272-2707. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:00-5:00).
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached at (571) 270-7938. 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.
/JEREMY A LUKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights