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 § 102
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(s) 1-3, 9, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Teig (20070194048).
Regarding claim 1, Teig discloses a pepper spray device comprising: a body (105) for operatively receiving a product cannister (304); and a soft touch grip forming a soft gripping surface on an outer surface of the body (par. 0046).
Regarding claim 2, the soft touch grip is disposed on the outer surface of the body (par. 0046). In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, the insert-molding limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. a pepper spray device, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. insert-molded soft touch grip.
Regarding claim 3, the soft touch grip is sized and shaped to conform to a shape of a user's palm and fingers wrapped around the outer surface of the body (par. 0046).
Regarding claim 9, the body is formed of a first material (par. 0045) and the soft touch grip is formed of a softer second material (par. 0046).
Regarding claim 18, the device further comprising a cannister (304) containing a chemical irritant.
Regarding claim 19, the chemical irritant comprises pepper spray (par. 0048).
Regarding claim 20, the device further comprising an actuator (335) for selectively dispensing product from within the cannister.
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.
Claim(s) 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teig in view of Chen (6945474).
Regarding claim 4, Teig DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the soft touch grip comprises a front grip pad and a rear grip pad that is oppositely disposed on the body from the front grip pad. Attention, however, is directed to the Chen reference, which discloses a soft touch grip comprises a front grip pad (40).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Teig reference in view of the teachings of the Chen reference by employing a front grip pad because Teig teaches that any ergonomic design and features contemplated in the art may be employed (par. 0046 of Teig). It also would have been obvious to employ a rear grip pad because Teig teaches the features may include one or more gripping portions provided on any region of the body (par. 0046 of Teig).
Regarding claim 5, the front grip pad is disposed in a front recess (31) on the outer surface of the body. Teig discloses the claimed invention except for the rear grip pad is disposed in a rear recess on the outer surface of the body. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a rear recess for the rear grip because Teig teaches that any ergonomic design and features contemplated in the art may be provided on any region of the body (par. 0046 of Teig).
Regarding claim 6, the front grip pad includes a plurality of finger channels configured to receive a user's fingers wrapped around the body (par. 0046 of Teig).
Regarding claim 7, an outer surface of the front grip pad has a convex curve along a longitudinal axis of the body (Figs. 1-2 of Teig; par. 0046 of Teig).
Regarding claim 8, the rear grip pad includes a radially protruding hump shaped to fit into and conform to a concave shape of a cupped palm of a user's hand gripping the body (Fig. 2 of Teig).
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teig in view of Barton (6138313) and Kostecki et al. (20060062628).
Regarding claims 10-12, Teig discloses the claimed invention except for viscoelastic, thermoplastic elastomer, or santoprene material. However, these materials were known to those skilled in the art (par. 0013 of Kostecki; col. 6, lines 3-7 of Barton). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ viscoelastic, thermoplastic elastomer, or santoprene, 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 MPEP 2144.07).
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teig in view of Beal (3799447).
Regarding claims 13-14, Teig discloses the claimed invention except for thermoplastic and polypropylene material. However, these materials were known to those skilled in the art (col. 2, lines 62-68 of Beal). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ thermoplastic or polypropylene, 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 MPEP 2144.07).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teig in view of Schroeder et al. (6375094).
Regarding claim 15, Teig DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the body includes one or more undercuts that mechanically secure the soft touch grip to the body. Attention, however, is directed to the Schroeder reference, which discloses a body includes one or more undercuts (322) that mechanically secure a soft touch grip (106) to the body (Fig. 5). Schroeder teaches that this configuration provides for a secure connection between the body and the soft touch grip (col. 12, lines 13-16).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Teig reference in view of the teachings of the Schroeder reference by including undercuts for the purpose of providing a secure connection between the soft touch grip and the body.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teig in view of Schroeder et al. as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Chen (6945474).
Regarding claim 16, Teig DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the undercuts are defined within through-holes in a wall of the body and the soft touch grip extends entirely through the wall such that the soft touch grip comprises diverging securement portions that are exposed at an internal surface of the body. Attention, however, is directed to the Chen reference, which discloses through-holes (32) in a wall of a body and a soft touch grip (40) extends entirely through the wall such that the soft touch grip comprises diverging securement portions (41) that are exposed at an internal surface of the body (Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the Teig reference in view of the teachings of the Chen reference by including through-holes and securement portions as claimed because Teig teaches that any ergonomic design and features contemplated in the art may be employed (par. 0046 of Teig).
Regarding claim 17, the diverging securement portions are spaced apart from each other in a circumferential direction of the body (Fig. 2 of Chen).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DONNELL ALAN LONG whose telephone number is (571)270-5610. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8AM-5PM.
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, PAUL DURAND can be reached at 571-272-4459. 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.
/DONNELL A LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754