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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 7/10/2025 has been received; Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kielland (US 2009/0151039) in view of Fehr (USPN 12,137,758).
Regarding Claim 1, Kielland discloses a kneepad (Figures 1 & 2) adapted to be worn on a wearer's leg for working on an inclined work surface (Figure 1), the kneepad comprising: a body positionable (2) onto the inclined work surface and including: a pad (11) defining an open cavity (22) for receiving a knee of the wearer (Figure 1), and a contacting interface (24a-c, Para. 37) being adapted to adhere to the inclined work surface (Para. 37) and secured to the pad so as to be between the pad and the inclined work surface (Figures 1 & 2); a leg connector (6 & 8) connected to the body of the kneepad and securable to a knee region of the wearer's leg (Figures 1 & 2), the leg connector being adapted to abut the pad against the knee when the knee is received within the cavity of the pad (Para. 31-33). Kielland does not specifically disclose a foot connector. However, Fehr discloses a foot connector (222 & 224) connected to a body of a kneepad (Figure 1) and securable to a foot region of the wearer's leg (Col. 3, line 59- Col. 4, line 3), the foot connector extending from the body of the kneepad to the foot region along the wearer's leg and allowing pivoting of the wearer’s leg at the knee (inasmuch is understood by the examiner, the knee region can pivot on the surface thereby allowing pivoting) when the knee is received within the cavity of the pad (Figure 5), wherein the foot connector is load-bearing to refrain the body from sliding up the wearer's leg by substantially more than a maximum length when a force is applied along the wearer's leg (Co. 3, line 38-52). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a foot connector, as taught by Fehr, to the shoe of Kielland in order to provide further measures from knee pad being push up a user’s leg.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Kielland and Fehr disclose the foot connector comprises a length adjusting system for adjusting a length of the foot connector in accordance with a length of the wearer's leg (Fehr, 228, Col. 3 lines 53-58).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Kielland and Fehr disclose the foot connector is flexible (Fehr, Col. 3, lines 38-52).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Kielland and Fehr disclose the foot connector comprises: an upper connecting portion (Fehr, portion above adjustment 228) being secured to the body of the kneepad; a lower connecting portion (Fehr, portion below adjustment 228) being reversibly securable to the foot region of the wearer's leg; and a length adjusting system (Fehr, 228) interconnecting the upper connecting portion and the lower connecting portion (Fehr, Figures 1-5), and being configured to adjust a length of the foot connector in accordance with a length of the wearer's leg (Fehr, Col. 3, lines 53-58).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Kielland and Fehr disclose the lower connecting portion of the foot connector is frictionally engaged with a proximal surface of the foot region (Fehr, Col. 3, line 59- Col. 4, line 3).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Kielland and Fehr disclose the foot region is a foot member of the wearer's leg (Fehr, Figures 1-5), and the proximal surface of the foot region is a bottom surface of the foot member with lower connecting portion being at least partially positioned inside a footwear of the wearer (Fehr, Figures 1-5).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Kielland and Fehr disclose the foot region is a footwear of the wearer (Fehr, Figures 1-5), and the proximal surface of the foot region is a bottom surface of the footwear (Fehr, Figures 1-5).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Kielland and Fehr disclose the upper connecting portion of the foot connector is frictionally engaged with a distal surface of the pad (Kielland, Para. 32 & Fehr, Figures 1-5).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Kielland and Fehr disclose the body further comprises at least one hook component extending outwardly from the distal surface of the pad (Kielland, Para. 32 & Fehr, Figures 1-5), the hook component being shaped to receive and retain the upper connecting portion of the foot connector, thereby preventing any sliding thereof from the pad (Fehr, Figures 1-5).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Kielland and Fehr disclose the upper connecting portion and the lower connecting portion are portions of a same strap member forming a loop around the wearer's leg when the knee is received within the cavity of the pad (Fehr, Figures 1-5).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Kielland and Fehr disclose the foot connector further comprises at least one connecting assembly comprising a hook and a ring, with the hook being provided at an end of the upper connecting portion so as to engage the ring being provided at an end of the lower connecting portion (Fehr, 228 & Figures 1-5).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Kielland and Fehr disclose the upper connecting portion is connected to the contacting interface of the kneepad at least one upper pivot point positioned proximate to a knee portion of the open cavity (Kielland, Figures 1 & 2 & Fehr, Figures 1-5).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Kielland and Fehr disclose the foot connector comprises one of a strap, a chain, a cable and a rope (Fehr, Col. 3, line 38- Col. 4, line 3).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Kielland and Fehr disclose the contacting interface comprises: a rigid portion extending at least inwardly and outwardly from the pad to define respectively an inner edge portion and an outer edge portion of the contacting interface (Kielland, Para. 28 & 37-39), and a contacting portion being applied to the rigid portion and being positionable to contact the inclined work surface (Kielland, Para. 28 & 37-39), wherein the contacting portion is made of a resilient material that is selected to at least partially conform to a shape of the inclined work surface when loaded with at least a portion of a weight of the wearer so as to generate a friction force against the inclined work surface, the friction force having a vertical component at least partially sufficient to retain the wearer on the inclined work surface (Kielland, Para. 28 & 37-39).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Kielland and Fehr disclose the contacting portion is substantially flat (Kielland, Figures 1 & 2, Para. 28 & 37-39).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Kielland and Fehr disclose the rigid portion and the pad of the body are formed as a single-piece structure (Kielland, Figures 1 & 2, Para. 28 & 37-39).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Kielland and Fehr disclose the inner edge portion has a width that is larger than a width of the outer edge portion to provide an increased friction force when the kneepad is perpendicular to the roof (Kielland, Figures 1 & 2, Para. 28 & 37-39).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Kielland and Fehr disclose the pad comprises an inner bolster defining an inner side of the open cavity and an outer bolster defining an outer side of the open cavity, the inner bolster being higher than the outer bolster, with the inner bolster being sized and shaped to abut an interior portion of the wearer's leg (Kielland, Para. 34, due to the ergonomic design the inner and outer bolsters would be as claimed).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Kielland and Fehr disclose the pad further comprises a distal bolster defining a distal side of the open cavity, the distal bolster being sized and shaped to abut another leg portion above the knee (Kielland, Para. 34, due to the ergonomic design the distal bolster would be as claimed).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Kielland and Fehr disclose the pair of kneepads comprising a left kneepad and a right kneepad, the left kneepad being a mirror image of the right kneepad (Kielland, Figure 1).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as discussed supra.
It is noted there is no structure in regards to pivoting of the wearer’s leg at the knee. It is suggested applicant positive recite the structure associated with pivoting.
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 KATHARINE KANE whose telephone number is (571)272-3398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-6pm EST.
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, KHOA HUYNH can be reached at 571-272-4888. 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.
/KATHARINE G KANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732