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 § 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 1-5 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, line 11, “a waist band having a third end and a fourth end” is confusing in that the claim does not set forth a first end and second end for the waist band; the first end and the second end is referenced with respect to the wrist band. It is suggested that the claim should be amended to state: “a waist band having a first end and a second end…wherein the “first end and the second end have mating fasteners…”
Claims 2-5 are rejected because they depend from a rejected claim 1.
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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Number 10,150,023 (Loh) in view of U.S. Patent Number 4,955,608 (Dougherty et al., hereinafter Dougherty) and U.S. Patent Number 6,202,263 (Harker).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Figure 3 of Loh discloses a tennis training tool with the recited wrist band 10, resilient tether 30 and waist band 20. Figure 1 of Loh shows that the wrist band has first and second ends with mating hook and loop fasteners 12,13.
Loh shows the wrist band attached to the resilient tether but not the ring, fabric loop and snap hook. Figures 1 and 3 of Dougherty show that elastic tethers 18 can be attached to ankle bands 14 using a ring 30, loop 32 and snap hook 28. The substitution of one known element (ring, loop and hook as shown in Dougherty) for another (the connecting mechanism as shown in Loh) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since the substitution of the connector shown in Dougherty would have yielded predictable results, namely, an easily and releasably detachable connection between the tether and the wrist band. Although Dougherty does not explicitly disclose the loop to be fabric, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the Dougherty loop from fabric, 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. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Resilient tethers with buckles on the ends were known in the art, as evidenced by Loh, while resilient tethers with posts 44 and apertures 32 were known in the art as evidenced by Figure 9 of Harker. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the buckles of Loh with the apertured posts of Harker by known methods and the results would have been a predictable use of known connectors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the buckles with an apertured post.
Figure 2 of Loh shows that the ends of the waist band are attached together using mating fasteners in the form of connectors 221,222. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the hook and loop fasteners used in the wrist band for the connectors of Loh for the waist band and the results would have been a predictable use of known adjustable fasteners. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the connectors of Loh with hook and loop fasteners.
Loh uses strap fasteners 51,52 to attach resilient tethers to the waist band instead of a ring/fabric loop/snap hook connection. As discussed above, Dougherty teaches that such connections are old and well-known in the connector art and the substitution of one known element (ring, loop and hook as shown in Dougherty) for another (the strap fasteners as shown in Loh) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since the substitution of the connector shown in Dougherty would have yielded predictable results, namely, an easily and releasably detachable connection between the tether and the waist band. Although Dougherty does not explicitly disclose the loop to be fabric, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the Dougherty loop from fabric, 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.
Regarding claim 3, although Loh discloses the resilient tether to be elastic, Loh does not explicitly disclose the use of rubber. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the elastic Loh tether from rubber, 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. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 4, the fibrous material used to make the Loh wrist band and waist band is considered to be fabric. See Loh, column 5, lines 15-19; column 5, lines 43-48.
Regarding claim 5, Loh does not disclose the recited attachment bands. Dougherty discloses the use of attachment bands on elastic tethers to limit movement of the tether. See Dougherty, column 3, lines 57-59. To provide the Loh tether with attachment bands would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teachings of Dougherty, since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, i.e., one skilled in the art would have recognized that the attachment bands used in Dougherty would allow the Loh tether to be more securely attached to the bands.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Raleigh Chiu whose telephone number is (571) 272-4408. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Tuesday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eugene Kim, can be reached on (571) 272-4463.
The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
It is noted that all practice before the Office is in writing (see 37 C.F.R. § 1.2) and the proper authority for action on any matter in this regard are the statutes (35 U.S.C.), regulations (37 C.F.R.) and the commentary on policy (MPEP). Therefore, no telephone discussion may be controlling or considered authority of Petitioner’s/Caller’s action(s).
/RALEIGH W CHIU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711