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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 1-5 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #11,231,250 to Fisher (Fisher), either alone or further in view of U.S. Patent #5,503,316 to Stewart (Stewart).
With Respect to Claim 1
Fisher discloses an assembly comprising: a personal safety device (112) having a deployment end (top end, noting shown nozzle/sprayer) and an oppositely-disposed second end (bottom end); a sleeve (110) having a tubular shape (Col. 3 lines 63-65 discloses a cylindrical shape which is a tubular shape) that defines an internal passage and oppositely-disposed upper and lower open ends that are defined by the internal passage therebetween (FIG. 1A shows the open top as 112 extends through it, FIG. 4 shows an open bottom with a strap partially covering it in similar fashion to the invention), the personal safety device being removably disposed within the internal passage and the elastic sleeve being sized to elastically expand to receive and elastically secure the personal safety device within the internal passage (Col. 3 lines 47-59 and lines 65-67), the deployment end of the personal safety device protruding through the upper open end of the sleeve (see, e.g. FIG. 1A) and the second end of the personal safety device protruding through the lower open end of the sleeve (noting the disclosure that the sleeve and also particularly explicitly only the bottom of the sleeve expanding to secure the device, it is Examiner’s position that the disclosure inherently indicates the device protruding through the lower open end as this is the only way to expand the bottom without expanding the other parts, see Col. 3 lines 55-57), the personal safety device being removable through the upper open end without obstruction other than friction between the personal safety device and the elastic sleeve created by the elastic sleeve elastically expanding to receive and elastically secure the personal safety device within the internal passage (as no other parts are disclosed as providing securement in place, this functionality is met); and a retention strap (bottom strap/side wall shown in FIGS. 4-5) spanning the lower open end of the elastic sleeve and engaging the second end of the personal safety device to prevent the personal safety device within the elastic sleeve from entirely exiting the internal passage through the lower open end (Col. 10 lines 25-34, particularly lines 32-34, see the drawings showing this strip/bottom side wall as a strap).
Alternately, to the degree that some other interpretation might be possible, having the device expand the bottom downwardly is clearly obvious as a mere selection of an art appropriate expansion direction or at most a mere rearrangement of parts (i.e. it merely rearranges the personal defense device to be lower in the sleeve so as to protrude) which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04)
Alternately, although Examiner maintains that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the disclosed and shown structure to be a retention strap and perform as claimed, to the degree that this is not described in the specification, Stewart discloses forming a similar personal safety device having a deployment end and oppositely disposed second end, a sleeve for securing it in place, and a retention strap (32) spanning the lower open end of the elastic sleeve and engaging the second end of the personal safety device to prevent the personal safety device within the elastic sleeve from entirely exiting the internal passage through the lower open end, and that the retention strap is releasable to allow for insertion and removal through the bottom end. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Stewart, to form the shown structure as a releasable bottom strap as taught by Stewart in order to better secure the personal safety device in position and prevent it from falling out through the bottom of the sleeve and/or to allow insertion and removal through the bottom of the sleeve. It is noted that the combination with Stewart also explicitly discloses/renders obvious the personal safety device protrudes through the lower open end of the sleeve in view of Stewart’s disclosure of its personal safety device doing so.
With Respect to Claim 2
The assembly of claim 1, wherein the personal safety device is a pepper spray device.
With Respect to Claim 3
The assembly of claim 1, wherein the retention strap engages the second end of the personal safety device protruding through the lower open end of the sleeve (noting the disclosure that the sleeve and also particularly explicitly only the bottom of the sleeve expanding to secure the device, it is Examiner’s position that the disclosure inherently indicates the device protruding through the lower open end as this is the only way to expand the bottom without expanding the other parts, see Col. 3 lines 55-57).
Alternately, to the degree that some other interpretation might be possible, having the device expand the bottom downwardly is clearly obvious as a mere selection of an art appropriate expansion direction or at most a mere rearrangement of parts (i.e. it merely rearranges the personal defense device to be lower in the sleeve so as to protrude) which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04)
Alternately, as to the combination with Stewart, Stewart discloses forming a similar holder such that the personal safety device protrudes through the lower open end of the sleeve and the retention strap engages the second end of the personal safety device protruding through the lower open end of the sleeve which provides additional motivation for and/or evidence of the obviousness of this structure.
With Respect to Claim 4
The assembly of claim 1, further comprising means (130) for securing the assembly to a human hand.
With Respect to Claim 5
The assembly of claim 4, wherein the securing means comprises a hand-securable strap assembly comprising: first and second strap sections (sections above and below the attachment point to the sleeve) defining opposite first and second ends of the hand-securable strap assembly; and complementary securement means (hook and loop fastener is shown or any other suitable fastening means is disclosed) at the first and second ends of the hand-securable strap assembly for releasably closing the hand-securable strap assembly into a loop; wherein the elastic sleeve is attached to the hand-securable strap assembly between the first and second ends thereof (FIG. 1A).
With Respect to Claim 9
The assembly of claim 5, wherein the elastic sleeve is attached to the first strap section so as to be parallel thereto (FIG. 1A).
With Respect to Claim 10
The assembly of claim 5, wherein the elastic sleeve is sewn or bonded to the hand-securable strap assembly (Col. 7 lines 28-32 indicates the hand strap may be coupled to the first sleeve and may be coupled using any of the coupling methods above, and Col. 5 lines 39-43 disclose sewing as well as various methods of bonding).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #11,231,250 to Fisher (Fisher) in view of U.S. Patent #5,503,316 to Stewart (Stewart).
With Respect to Claim 11
Fisher, either alone or in view of Stewart as applied to claim 1 above discloses the assembly of claim 5, and that any of numerous suitable art known fastening methods could be used to attach the hand-securable strap assembly, but does not disclose wherein the elastic sleeve is releasably attached to the hand-securable strap assembly with complementary hook-and-loop features.
However, Stewart discloses attaching a similar strap assembly to a personal safety device holding sleeve using hook and loop fastener.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Stewart, to use hook and loop fastener to attach the elastic sleeve to the hand-securable strap, in order to allow for removal of the sleeve from the strap for repair/replacement/cleaning, to allow for use with other items, and/or as doing so constitutes at most merely making separable which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #11,231,250 to Fisher (Fisher), either alone or further in view of U.S. Patent #5,503,316 to Stewart (Stewart) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent #5,515,247 to Cheung (Cheung), and/or U.S. Patent #4,523,258 to Morse (Morse).
With Respect to Claim 6
The assembly of claim 5, and the use of lights as a deterrent and/or to draw attention to the user; but does not disclose further comprising an illumination unit within the first strap section that renders the first strap section visible in lighting conditions of lower intensity than daylight conditions.
However, Cheung discloses forming a similar user attached band comprising an illumination unit within the first strap section that renders the first strap section visible in lighting conditions of lower intensity than daylight conditions; Morse discloses forming a user attached band with an illumination unit within the first strap section that renders the first strap section visible in lighting conditions of lower intensity than daylight conditions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Cheung or Morse, to add an illumination unit as taught by either reference to the hand strap of Fisher, in order to provide light to the user and/or to be used as a deterrent or to draw attention to the user as taught by Fisher.
Alternately, although Examiner maintains that either reference is sufficient on its own, Morse provides evidence of the obviousness of the user of lights on a user worn band/belt as a safety feature, and Cheung provides evidence of the obviousness of lights on a similarly sized strap in a similar location, and so the two in combination provide additional evidence of the obviousness of adding an illumination unit as claimed (for clarity, the particulars of the illumination unit could be similar to Cheung or to Morse) to the hand strap of Fisher/the combination.
With Respect to Claim 7
The assembly of claim 6, further comprising a switch (46-47 per Morse or button 12 per Cheung which is disclosed as an on/off switch) disposed at one of the first and second ends of the hand-securable strap assembly for operating the illumination unit.
Claims 8, 12-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #11,231,250 to Fisher (Fisher) in view of U.S. Patent #5,515,247 to Cheung (Cheung), and/or U.S. Patent #4,523,258 to Morse (Morse), either alone or further in view of U.S. Patent #5,503,316 to Stewart (Stewart) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent #10,013,962 to Washington (Washington) and either U.S. Patent Publication #2015/0335135 to Stoll (Stoll) or U.S. Patent #7,922,349 to Hunnewell (Hunnewell).
With Respect to Claim 8
The assembly of claim 6, wherein the illumination unit comprises a light-emitting member (14 per Cheung or 30 and 15/15’ per Morse) extending through a length of the first strap section and an electronics enclosure (Morse FIG. 1 or 4/30 per Cheung) at the first end of the first strap section and coupled to the light-emitting member, the light-emitting member utilizing light-generating means so as to emit light therefrom; but does not disclose that the enclosure is within the first end of the strap or the electronics enclosure utilizing light-generating means so as to emit light therefrom.
However, Washington discloses forming a similar strap with a light up element with the controller of the light up element being located within an end of the strap (noting disclosure of locating it in a pocket on the rear of the strap) and that this is an alternative to other attachment methods.
Stoll discloses forming a controller for a similar illuminated strap (noting shoulder straps) with a controller enclosure that utilizes light-generating means (110) so as to emit light therefrom in order to provide an indicator light to show when the LED lights are activated; Hunnewell discloses forming the controls/buttons (70a/b) for an LED light (40) so that the controls/buttons are backlit by a separate LED (92c) to indicate charging status and/or battery life.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Washington, to locate the controller within the strap of Fisher/the combination (e.g. in a pocket) in order to protect the enclosure, to improve aesthetic appeal by hiding the controller from view, and/or as a mere selection of an art appropriate attachment mechanism or at most a mere substitution of one art known attachment mechanism for another.
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Stoll or Hunnewell, to form the enclosure to include light generating means as claimed/as taught by either reference, for the benefits disclosed by that reference for its structure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 14-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Applicant’s arguments that the amendments to claim 12 overcome the previous rejection are persuasive; additionally, none of the other prior art, alone or in combination, discloses or renders obvious the claimed subject matter.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to claims 1-11.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that Stewart does not disclose a tubular sleeve that holds the aerosol container but rather a strap 30 that wraps axially around the aerosol canister, Stewart discloses an elongated housing (10) shown to be a tubular sleeve (see e.g. FIG. 2), the strap (30) having a bottom end (32) forming/which is a retention strap for covering the lower open end (33) of the housing, and as shown in FIG. 3 the canister (12) extends below the open bottom end of the tubular sleeve/housing (10) to engage the retention strap (32). As such, Stewart clearly discloses the second end of a personal safety device protruding through the lower open end of the sleeve and provides sufficient motivation for and/or evidence of the obviousness of forming the Fisher structure to do so.
In response to Applicant’s arguments regarding the inherency of Fisher’s disclosure of the bottom protruding through the sleeve, Applicant’s arguments that Fisher’s drawings do not explicitly show this structure are not persuasive, as if the drawings explicitly showed it, it would not require an inherency argument. Clearly, something can be inherent even if it is not shown in the drawings.
In response to Applicant’s arguments regarding the disclosure of Fisher, Applicant is apparently attempting to take the various portions of Fisher in isolation rather than considering them as a whole. Fisher discloses that the bottom wall may be made of an elastic strap affixed to the sidewall and FIGS. 4-5 clearly show such a bottom wall/strap attached only at the ends. Examiner maintains that a person of ordinary skill in the art, reading these disclosures and the disclosure of Col. 3 lines 55-57 that the bottom portion of the first sleeve may expand while the remaining portion does not expand refers to the bottom/elastic strap expanding while the sidewalls do not expand.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that nothing in Fisher discloses, suggests, or shows that the bottom wall strip does not completely close the lower end of the sleeve (110), FIGS. 4-5 show the bottom strip not connected to all of the sidewalls of the canister and extending therebelow. As such, it is no conjecture that the bottom wall strip is only attached on two sides of the sleeve.
Examiner maintains the position that the disclosure, taken as a whole, inherently discloses the bottom wall/retention strap expanding downwardly to accommodate a larger canister, and believes that Applicant is performing mental gymnastics to attempt to find some other interpretation of Fisher’s disclosure. It is noted, however, that even if this argument were found persuasive, the disclosure of an elastic strap attached at its ends and an expandable bottom are sufficiently similar to Stewart’s strap extending over an open bottom to render obvious the claimed subject matter in view of Stewart. For clarity, Examiner’s position is that Steward discloses an expandable strap attached at two ends to the sidewalls of the container and the bottom portion of the sleeve (apparently meant to refer to the bottom wall) being expandable to secure the deterrent item while the remaining portion does not expand), and the only direction the bottom wall can expand is downward to do so which requires that the canister protrude through the bottom; alternately, to the degree that some other interpretation/construction might be possible, this construction is obvious (see the rejection of claim 1 above for details), either in view of Fisher alone and the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art or in view of Stewart.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ADAM J WAGGENSPACK whose telephone number is (571)270-7418. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at (571)272-4544. 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.
/ADAM J WAGGENSPACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights