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 because the drawings are difficult to interpret since the claimed elements are not properly shown or highlighted due to the figures being in gray scale as opposed to a wire frame drawing. 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 17-21 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.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the zipper pull or handle" in the seventh and eighth line of the claim. It is unclear whether the applicant is attempting to introduce a new element or they are attempting to reference a different limitation. If it is the former, the limitation should read “a zipper pull or handle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 18-21 are also rejected as they depend on claim 17.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 8, 11-14, 16-18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haswell (US 2,515,557 A).
Regarding claim 1, Haswell discloses a device for engaging a zipper (Fig. 1-5; Col. 1, Ln. 1-7), comprising: a cuff having a substantially flat central region (Fig. 1-5 depicting the device having a flat surface as depicted by the character 10b) with two opposing ends curved towards each other, thereby defining a cuff inner surface and an outer surface (Fig. 1-5 depicting part 10b and portion 9a extending from the flat surface and further depicting and inner and outer surface); and at least one extension extending outwardly from the outer surface of the cuff (Fig. 1-5; Col. 3, Ln. 8-23, hook 11).
Regarding claim 2, Haswell discloses wherein the at least one extension extends outwardly from the outer surface of the substantially flat region of the cuff (Fig. 1-5; Col. 3, Ln. 8-23, hook 11).
Regarding claims 5 and 18, Haswell discloses wherein the at least one extension is a hook (Fig. 1-5; Col. 3, Ln. 8-23, hook 11).
Regarding claim 8, Haswell discloses wherein the at least one extension is releasably fixed to the cuff (Col. 3, Ln. 64-65; Col. 4, Ln. 1-6).
Regarding claim 11, Haswell discloses wherein the cuff includes a top edge and a bottom edge along its length, and wherein the length of the top edge is shorter than the length of the bottom edge (Fig. 2-3 depicting the part 10b having a shorter length than the portion 9a).
Regarding claim 12, Haswell discloses wherein the cuff has a width, and the width of the flat central portion is different than the width of the two opposing curved ends (Fig. 1-5; Col. 2, Ln. 43-48).
Regarding claim 13, Haswell discloses wherein the cuff is configured to make a friction fit when positioned on a user's hand (Fig. 1; Col. 3, Ln. 8-10).
Regarding claim 14, Haswell discloses wherein the cuff is configured such that the at least one extension extends outward from the dorsal side of the user's hand when the cuff is positioned on the user's hand (Fig. 1; Col. 3, Ln. 8-10).
Regarding claim 16, Haswell discloses a method for engaging and closing a zipper mechanism, comprising the steps of: providing a device for engaging the zipper (Fig. 1-5; Col. 1, Ln. 1-7), comprising; a cuff having a substantially flat central region (Fig. 1-5 depicting the device having a flat surface as depicted by the character 10b) with two opposing ends curved towards each other, thereby defining a cuff inner surface and an outer surface (Fig. 1-5 depicting part 10b and portion 9a extending from the flat surface and further depicting and inner and outer surface); at least one extension extending outwardly from the outer surface of the cuff (Fig. 1-5; Col. 3, Ln. 8-23, hook 11); positioning the device onto a user's hand (Fig. 1; Col. 3, Ln. 8-10); positioning a bottom stop of a zipper at or into a zipper slider; positioning the at least one extension of the cuff below the bottom stop and pushing the bottom stop fully into the slider via the cuff extension (Fig. 1; Col. 3, Ln. 36-55); engaging the at least one extension of the cuff with a zipper pull or handle (Fig. 1; Col. 3, Ln. 36-55, handle portion 10a); and pulling the zipper pull or handle upward via the cuff extension, such that the zipper mechanism is engaged (Fig. 1; Col. 3, Ln. 56-65; Col. 4, Ln.1-11).
Regarding claim 17, Haswell discloses a method for opening and disengaging a zipper mechanism, comprising the steps of: providing a device for engaging the zipper (Fig. 1-5; Col. 1, Ln. 1-7), comprising: a cuff having a substantially flat central region with two opposing ends curved towards each other, thereby defining a cuff inner surface and a cuff outer surface (Fig. 1-5 depicting part 10b and portion 9a extending from the flat surface and further depicting and inner and outer surface; at least one extension extending outwardly from the outer surface of the cuff (Fig. 1-5; Col. 3, Ln. 8-23, hook 11); positioning the device of onto a user's hand (Fig. 1; Col. 3, Ln. 36-55, handle portion 10a); engaging the at least one extension of the cuff with the zipper pull or handle; and pulling the zipper pull or handle downward via the cuff extension, such that the zipper mechanism is disengaged (Fig. 1; Col. 3, Ln. 56-65; Col. 4, Ln.1-11).
Regarding claim 21, Haswell discloses wherein the zipper mechanism is integrated into an article of clothing worn by the user (Fig. 1; Col. 1, Ln. 1-21).
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 3-4, 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haswell (US 2,515,557 A).
Regarding claims 3, 4 and 9, Haswell discloses wherein the device being made of various materials such as strong, plastics and metals (Col. 3, Ln. 24-28), but does not disclose the rigidity or flexibility of the opposing ends or the malleability of the inner surface of the device. However, the rigidity, flexibility and malleability of the disclosed materials is well-known in the art, despite being absent from the cited documentation, is buttressed by the Federal Circuit’s statement that “[a] patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art.” See In re Buchner, 929 F.2d 660, 661, 18 USPQ2d 1331, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and MPEP 2164.01. In this instance, given the desired structure and material of the device, one skilled in the art would understand that the strong material would provide a rigid material and the flexibility between the opposing ends is provided by the curvature of the device’s body. Furthermore, the inner surface would be understood to be malleable in order to custom fit or provide a means for inserting a larger hand.
Regarding claim 15, Haswell discloses wherein the cuff is configured such that the at least one extension extends outward from the dorsal side of the user's hand when the cuff is positioned on the user's hand (Fig. 1; Col. 3, Ln. 8-10), but does not disclose the extension extending from a palmar side. However, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been an obvious matter of choosing a preferred means to handling the device wherein the palmar side of the user’s hand to face the extension, since applicant has not disclosed that the positioning of the hand solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the simple hand position change. In this instance, the disclosed invention allows for the user to hold the device in a manner that best fits their comfortability.
Claims 6-7 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haswell (US 2,515,557 A) as applied to claims 1-5, 8-9, 11-18 and 21 above, and further in view of Thomas (US 767,918 A).
Regarding claims 6-7 and 19-20, Haswell discloses wherein the at least one extension is a hook, but fails to disclose the extension including two hooks facing opposite or pointed towards each other. However, Thomas teaches wherein the at least one extension includes two hooks being adjustable to point in any direction applied by the user (Pg. 1, Col. 16-31, spurs being adjustable). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporated an extension to have two hooks arrange either opposite or towards each other in order to adapt the orientation of said hooks to the peculiar shape of the varying hand shape of the user which further provides a means of efficient and comfortable gripping and grabbing capabilities. In this instance, reorienting the hooks, or spurs taught by Thomas, would provide adjustability to the using so that the user may reorient based on comfort of hand movement and positioning.
Although the disclosure in Thomas is concerned with corn-huskers, the fact that the spurs taught therein serve to gripping and manipulating an object makes Thomas sufficiently analogous to the limitations in instant claims 6-7 and 19-20 to be applicable to and utilized in the applicant's claimed zipper engaging device. See MPEP § 2141.01(a). The Federal Circuit’s reasoning in In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 23 USPQ2d 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1992), bolsters this applicability determination. The court there stated “A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that of the inventor’s endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem.” Id. at 659, 1060-61. Since the use of the hooks, is a methodology applicable to both Thomas and instant claims 6-7 and 19-20, it would have been obvious to a reasonably skilled practitioner in the art at the time of the invention to utilize these hooks as taught by Thomas. Instant claims 6-7 and 19-20 is thus rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Haswell in light of Thomas.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haswell (US 2,515,557 A) as applied to claims 1-5, 8-9, 11-18 and 21 above, and further in view of Ray (US 1,296,120 A).
Regarding claim 10, Haswell discloses the claimed invention except for a padded inner surface. However, Ray teaches wherein the inner surface is padded (Pg. 1, Ln. 54-80). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a padded interior of the portion the handle in order to provide a means for comfort and stability when operating the device.
Although the disclosure in Ray is concerned with corn-huskers, the fact that the padded handle taught therein serve to provide a comfort grip for the user’s hands makes Ray sufficiently analogous to the limitations in instant claim 10 to be applicable to and utilized in the applicant's claimed zipper engaging device. See MPEP § 2141.01(a). The Federal Circuit’s reasoning in In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 23 USPQ2d 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1992), bolsters this applicability determination. The court there stated “A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that of the inventor’s endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem.” Id. at 659, 1060-61. Since the use of the padding, is a methodology applicable to both Ray and instant claim 10, it would have been obvious to a reasonably skilled practitioner in the art at the time of the invention to utilize these padded handles as taught by Ray. Instant claim 10 is thus rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Haswell in light of Ray.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references refer to devices which assist in the opening and closing of a zipper. The devices allow for the user to place their hand through an opening and attach a hook end to the zipper for manipulation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERMIA E MELIKA whose telephone number is (571)270-5162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM EST and a flexed schedule on Fridays from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM 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, Victoria P. Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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.
ERMIA E. MELIKA
Examiner
Art Unit 3654
/ERMIA E. MELIKA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights