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 .
Any References cited but not appearing in any current Form 892 may be found in previous Form 892’s or IDS’s.
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claims filed on 01/21/2026 has been entered. In the amendment, claims 1, 8-12 and 15-20 are amended. Claims 21-26 are added. Claims 2-7 and 13-14 are cancelled. Claims 1, 8-12 and 15-26 are currently pending.
The amendment to claim 1 overcomes the objection to claim 1.
The cancellation of claim 3 renders the objection to claim 3 moot.
The amendment to claim 8 overcomes the objection to claim 8.
The amendment to claim 15 overcomes the objection to claim 15.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 01/21/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of previously cited Hong (US 2017/0290530) and in view of previously cited Keberle (WO 2024/215331).
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 24 recites “wherein the report signal includes a forceful unlocking of the remote-controlled wearable restraint device during an emergency situation--. It is understood that a signal does not include a forceful unlocking but is indicative of a forceful unlocking. Thus, it is suggested that the claim is amended to recite --wherein the report signal is indicative of a forceful unlocking of the remote-controlled wearable restraint device during an emergency situation--.
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 25 recites “which cases tearing” where it appears it should recite –which causes tearing--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “restraining member” and “limiting member” in claim 1.
Claim limitation “restraining member” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “member” as a substitute for means coupled with functional language “restraining” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic place holder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the corresponding structure of the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation “restraining member” described in the specification includes a notch (Applicant’s specification, [0073]); a belt (Applicant’s specification, [0074]) and restrainers which have a plurality of tooth profiles (Applicant’s specification, [0081]).
Claim limitation “limiting member” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “member” as a substitute for means coupled with functional language “limiting” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic place holder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the corresponding structure of the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation “limiting member” described in the specification includes a gear (Applicant’s specification, [0105]).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1, 12 and 15-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (US 2017/0290530) in view of Keberle (WO 2024/215331).
Regarding claim 1, Hong discloses a remote-controlled wearable restraint device (200, 100) ([0101], mobile terminal is a remote control; capable of intended use), the device comprising; a restraining member (270, [0230]; Fig. 2, belt/strap 270 is a restraining member per 112f analysis above), the restraining member being worn by a wearer when in use ([0170] the smart belt is worn); a lock structure (260) ([[0169], [0170], per Applicant’s specification, the lock structure is configured to adjust a tightness as is the buckle 260) coupled to the restraining member ([0179], shafts and gears of the buckle unit adjust a tightness of the strap 270 [restraining member]), the lock structure including a motor ([0175], driving motor); and a sensing module (plurality of sensors, [0239]; [0211]) configured to detect a wearing state of the remote-controlled wearable restraint device by measuring the tightness of the restraining member ([0236], the initial amount of tightening is sensed; [0239]) or by detecting whether a detection circuit is built in the restraining member, wherein the wearing state of the remote-controlled wearable restraint device includes locking and unlocking of the remote-controlled wearable restraint device(per the applicant’s specification at [0007], the lock structure is configured to adjust a tightness of the restraining member; [00168], [0002], tightening/loosening of the belt [restraining member] is locking/unlocking as the belt cannot be removed when tight and is thus locked and can be removed when loose/not inserted in a buckle unit and is thus unlocked).
Hong does not disclose a restraining member provided with a pattern; the lock structure including a motor and a limiting member provided with a complementary pattern which is adapted to be engaged with the pattern, and the limiting member being coupled with the motor and being configured to constrain a relative position between the pattern and the complementary pattern to adjust a tightness of the restraining member by operation of the motor.
Keberle teaches an analogous restraining member (124) ([0027], straps) provided with a pattern (132) ([0027], slots, notches, as seen in Fig. 6 the slots 132 are arranged repeatedly in a row and thus are provided with a pattern); and an analogous lock structure (120) ([0027]; [0028]; NOTE: the buckle can tighten/lock the straps or the straps can be free from or loosened in the buckle [unlocked] thus the buckle locks and unlocks the straps) coupled to the restraining member (Fig. 6, [0027]), wherein the lock structure is configured to adjust a tightness of the restraining member ([0027]); the lock structure including a motor (122) ([0027]) and a limiting member (136) ([0027], per 112f analysis, engaging members 134 of a wheel are equivalent to a gear) provided with a complementary pattern which is adapted to be engaged with the pattern ([0027], slots/notches of the strap [restraining member] engage engaging members of the wheel), and the limiting member being coupled with the motor ([0027], motor use to rotate the wheel) and being configured to constrain a relative position between the pattern and the complementary pattern to adjust a tightness of the restraining member by operation of the motor ([0027], the motor assemblies can be activated to take-up the straps 124 and adjust a strap length and thus the wheel [gear] is configured to constrain [secure or limit] a relative position between the pattern of the strap and the complementary pattern [engaging members of the wheel [gear/restraining member]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to provide that the restraining member of the remote-controlled wearable restraint device of Hong is provided with a pattern and to provide that the remote-controlled wearable restraint device of Hong is comprising a lock structure coupled to the restraining member, the lock structure including a motor and a limiting member provided with a complementary pattern which is adapted to be engaged with the pattern, and the limiting member being coupled with the motor and being configured to constrain a relative position between the pattern and the complementary pattern to adjust a tightness of the restraining member by operation of the motor, as taught by Keberle, in order to provide an improved remote-controlled wearable restraint device that monitors force or tension on the restraining member and inhibits over-tightening (Keberle, [0027]).
Regarding claim 12, Hong in view of Keberle discloses the invention as described above with regard to claim 1.
Keberle further teaches wherein the restraining member is made up of a flexible material ([0020]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to provide that the restraining member of the remote-controlled wearable device of Hong in view of Keberle is flexible, as taught by Keberle, in order to provide an improved remote-controlled wearable device that may bend in various positions and hug the contours of the body during use (Keberle, [0020]).
Regarding claim 15, Hong in view of Keberle discloses the invention as described above with regard to claim 1.
Hong further discloses an electronic controller (400) ([0226]); and a memory unit, the memory unit comprising machine-readable instructions ([0245]; the controller 400 takes instructions from the mobile unit 100 that is operable with an application and it is implied that the application is stored on memory), that when executed by the electronic controller ([0245], Fig. 17, shows the controller in connection with the memory) enable the electronic controller to: generate a report signal indicative of a change in a wearing state of the remote-controlled wearable restraint device in response to an input signal received from the sensing module (Fig. 17, the sensing unit is connected to the controller and the controller is connected to the mobile communication module thus the controller is enabled to generate a report signal indicative of a change in a wearing state in response to an input signal received from the sensing module; [0245], During the cooperation with the application, the user can set a tightened degree of the strap 270 that the user normally desires and limit the highest tightened and loosened degrees of the strap 270. According to this function, the smart belt 270 can check changes in the length of the strap 270 in real time and notify the checked result to the user such that the user can recognize excessive or non-excessive eating and the risk of obesity; As seen in Fig. 17 the sensing unit is connected to the controller and the controller is connected to the mobile communication module thus the controller is enabled to generate a report signal indicative of a change in a wearing state in response to an input signal received from the sensing module; [0231], the controller may control the smart belt to tighten or loosen itself in response to the decided activity mode therefore providing a different feedback to the user in each mode; [0239], the sensors may be provided within the buckle; [0204], the step of adjusting may be carried out by the mobile terminal 100 connected to the smart belt; NOTE: the smart belt check changes in the length of the strap and notifies the user thus it is implicit that report signal is generated that is indicative of a change in wearing state in response to an input signal from the sensing module [smart belt checks changes]); and transmit the report signal to a monitor client device associated with a monitor of the remote-controlled wearable restraint device ([0245], In addition, the smart belt 200 according to the one embodiment may be provided with a function of being operable with an application installed on the mobile terminal illustrated in FIGS. 1A to 1C. During the cooperation with the application, the user can set a tightened degree of the strap 270 that the user normally desires and limit the highest tightened and loosened degrees of the strap 270. According to this function, the smart belt 270 can check changes in the length of the strap 270 in real time and notify the checked result to the user such that the user can recognize excessive or non-excessive eating and the risk of obesity. NOTE: the smart belt check changes in the length of the strap and notifies the user thus a report signal is transmitted to a monitor client device 100 associated with a monitor [user] of the remove-controlled wearable restraint device).
Regarding claim 16, Hong in view of Keberle discloses the invention as described above with regard to claim 1.
Hong further teaches wherein the sensing module is associated with at least one of the lock structure ([0239]) and the restraining member ([0238], sensors associated with belt [restraining member).
Regarding claim 17, Hong in view of Keberle discloses the invention as described above with regard to claim 16.
Hong further teaches wherein the sensing module comprises a conductive material (253, 256, 256a) (Hong, [0230];[0211]; NOTE: in one embodiment the sensor is a resistance measurement sensor which comes into contact with a conductive material 256a) associated with the restraining member (Hong, [0228) and indicative of the wearing state of the remote-controlled wearable restraint device (Hong, [0238]; NOTE: A sensor detecting for example an internal pressure of the belt [tightness] is indicative of the wearing state), the conductive material being disposed within at least a part of the restraining member at least to build a detection circuit therein (Hong, [0228]; NOTE: the sensors are mounted in the smart belt and thus the conductive material is disposed with at least a part of the restraining member at least to build a detection circuit therein).
Regarding claim 18, Hong in view of Keberle discloses the invention as described above with regard to claim 1.
Keberle further teaches wherein the restraining member comprises a first end and a second end (Fig. 6), one of the first end and the second end being configured to pass through the lock structure ([0027], strap feeding device takes up straps [restraining members]) and coupled to the other one of the second end and the first end (Fig. 6), thereby forming a ring-like structure adapted to be worn by the wearer (Fig. 6, when straps taken up a ring-like structure is formed).
Regarding claim 19, Hong in view of Keberle discloses the invention as described above with regard to claim 1.
Keberle further teaches wherein the restraining member is an open-close type restraining member ([0027], the straps are threaded through the openings; NOTE: when the straps are threaded the device is closed as a closed loop-type structure is formed and when the straps are unthreaded an open loop-type structure is formed).
Regarding claim 20, Hong in view of Keberle discloses the invention as described above with regard to claim 1.
Hong further teaches wherein the remote-controlled wearable restraint device is one of a male remote-controlled wearable restraint device or a female remote-controlled wearable restraint device ([0006], NOTE: a male or female user may wear the device and when a male wears it, it is a male remote-controlled wearable restraint device and when a female wears it, it is a female remote-controlled wearable restraint device).
Regarding claim 21, Hong in view of Keberle discloses the invention as described above with regard to claim 1.
Hong further teaches wherein changes of the wearing state of the remote-controlled wearable restraint device are constrained without permission of a monitor ([user]; [0072], data may be input and analyzed and processed according to user’s commands; [0072], input interface between the mobile terminal 100 and the user; [0027], the adjusting the amount of tightening may be executed by a mobile terminal connected to the smart belt; [0093], user input enables the controller to control operation of the mobile terminal 100; [0257], the controller may control the tightening and loosening of the smart belt and correct the user’s posture; NOTE: thus where permission by a monitor [user using mobile terminal] is not given the number of ways in which the changes of the wearing state of the remote-controlled wearable restraint device occurs is decreased thus limited/constrained).
Regarding claim 22, Hong in view of Keberle discloses the invention as described above with regard to claim 21
Hong further teaches wherein the monitor is a person who is a guardian of the wearer (NOTE: a user who is an adult is considered to be his own guardian).
Regarding claim 23, Hong in view of Keberle discloses the invention as described above with regard to claim 1.
Hong further teaches wherein a report signal indicative of a change in a wearing state of the remote- controlled wearable restraint device is transmitted to a monitor client device (100) associated with a monitor ([0245], In addition, the smart belt 200 according to the one embodiment may be provided with a function of being operable with an application installed on the mobile terminal illustrated in FIGS. 1A to 1C. During the cooperation with the application, the user can set a tightened degree of the strap 270 that the user normally desires and limit the highest tightened and loosened degrees of the strap 270. According to this function, the smart belt 270 can check changes in the length of the strap 270 in real time and notify the checked result to the user such that the user can recognize excessive or non-excessive eating and the risk of obesity. NOTE: the smart belt check changes in the length of the strap and notifies the user thus a report signal indicative of a change is wearing state is transmitted to a monitor client device associated with a monitor [user]).
Claim(s) 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (US 2017/0290530) in view of Keberle (WO 2024/215331) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eversole (US 2022/0400646).
Regarding claim 8, Hong in view of Keberle discloses the invention as described above with regard to claim 1.
Keberle further teaches wherein the lock structure comprises: the motor (122) ([0027]) which comprises a rotatable member (136) (Fig. 7) ([0027]).
Hong in view of Keberle does not explicitly disclose a motor shaft; a driver shaft
Eversole teaches an analogous motor (18) (Fig. 1) ([0020]), which comprises a motor shaft (32); (see annotated Fig. 3 below where a section of 32 is a shaft); a driver shaft (36) (annotated Fig. 3)
PNG
media_image1.png
578
781
media_image1.png
Greyscale
comprising a proximal end (annotated Fig. 3) and a distal end (annotated Fig. 3); and an analogous limiting member (20) ([0020]; NOTE: spool 20 is analogous to a limiting member in that it rotates like a gear and accepts an analogous restraining member 16 [belt]), which is rotatably connected to the distal end of the driver shaft (annotated Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to provide that the motor of the remote-controlled wearable restraint device of Hong in view of Keberle comprises a motor shaft; a driver shaft comprising a proximal and a distal end; and the limiting member, which is rotatably connected to the distal end of the driver shaft as taught by Eversole, in order to provide an improved remote-controlled wearable restraint device that facilitates providing an unchanging constant strap speed uniform speed during a use state (Eversole, [0023]).
Regarding claim 10, Hong in view of Keberle and in further view of Eversole discloses the invention as described above with regard to claim 8.
Keberle further teaches wherein the motor shaft and the driving shaft are orthogonally coupled with each other (see annotated Fig. 3 above with regard to the claim 8 rejection showing the motor shaft and the drive shaft are orthogonally coupled).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (US 2017/0290530) in view of Keberle (WO 2024/215331) and in further view of Eversole (US 2022/0400646) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Straily (US 11231085).
Regarding claim 9, Hong in view of Keberle and in further view of Eversole discloses the invention as described above with regard to claim 8.
The combination discloses a limiting member (per 112f the wheel of Keberle could be construed as an equivalent of a gear).
However, the combination does not explicitly disclose a limiting member is a gear.
Straily teaches an analogous restraining member (106) (Fig. 4) (col. 3, lines 3-23) and an analogous limiting member, wherein the limiting member is a gear 108B (col. 1, lines 30-42, motor shaft/pulley/gear/belt/system) col. 2, lines 3-23; NOTE: a pulley with teeth is a gear meshing with the belt [restraining member] with teeth is a gear), and the gear is formed with complementary patterns (Fig. 4 shows the gear formed with complementary patterns adapted to be engaged with the patterns of the restraining member).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to provide that the limiting member of the remote-controlled wearable restraint device of Hong in view of Keberle and in further view of Eversole is a gear, and the gear is formed with complementary patterns, as taught by Straily, in order to provide an remote-controlled wearable restraint that reduces slippage of the restraining member (Straily, col. 3, lines 3-23).
Claim(s) 11 and 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (US 2017/0290530) in view of Keberle (WO 2024/215331) as applied to claim 1 above with regard to claims 11 and 25-26, and as applied to claim 23 above with regard to claim 24, and further in view of Bandorf (US 2008/0033389).
Regarding claim 11, Hong in view of Keberle discloses the invention as described above with regard to claim 1.
The combination fails to disclose wherein the restraining member is formed with at least one notch adapted to tear the restraining member.
Bandorf teaches an analogous restraining member (hip belt, [0013]) wherein the restraining member is formed with at least one notch ([0013]) adapted to tear the restraining member (capable of intended use; [0013]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to provide that the restraining member of the remote-controlled wearable restraint of Hong in view of Keberle is formed with at least one notch adapted to tear the restraining member, as taught by Bandorf , in order to provide an improved remote-controlled wearable restraint that facilitates increasing the flexibility of length adjustment (Bandorf, [0014]) and that facilitates separation of the restraining member (Bandorf, [0013]).
Regarding claim 24, Hong in view of Keberle discloses the invention as described above with regard to claim 23.
Hong further teaches wherein the report signal includes detected movements of the restraining member [belt] and a force applied to the restraining member (Hong, [0025]; [0021]; [0245]).
Hong in view of Keberle does not disclose wherein the report signal includes a forceful unlocking of the remote-controlled wearable restraint device during an emergency situation.
Bandorf teaches an analogous restraining member (hip belt, [0013]) wherein the restraining member is formed with at least one notch ([0013]) for a forceful unlocking of the analogous restraining member during an emergency situation (capable of intended use; [0013]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to provide that the restraining member of the remote-controlled wearable restraint device of Hong in view of Keberle is comprising a notch such that the restraining member is configured for forceful unlocking of the analogous restraining member during an emergency situation, as taught by Bandorf, in order to provide an improved remote-controlled wearable restraint device that that facilitates separation of the restraining member (Bandorf, [0013]).
Hong in view of Keberle and in further view of Bandorf discloses the invention as described above.
The combination further discloses wherein the report signal includes a forceful unlocking of the remote-controlled wearable restraint device during an emergency situation (Hong [0021]; [0025]; [0245] teaches sensors that detect movement of the restraining member [belt] and movement of the restraining member, and Bandorf teaches a notch for a forceful unlocking of the remote-controlled wearable restraint device during an emergency situation thus in the combination the report signal would include/indicate a forceful unlocking of the remote-controlled wearable restraint device which is a movement of the restraining member and force applied to the restraining member during an emergency situation).
Regarding claim 25, Hong in view of Keberle discloses the invention as described above with regard to claim 1.
The combination fails to disclose wherein a forceful unlocking of the remote-controlled wearable restraint device is operated through a tearing-easing formation of the restraining member, and wherein the tearing-easing formation reduces at least a localized bending resistance which cases tearing of the restraining member into two pieces during an emergency situation.
Bandorf teaches an analogous restraining member (hip belt, [0013]) wherein a forceful unlocking is operated through a tearing-easing formation (notch, [0013]) of the restraining member (capable of intended use), and wherein the tearing-easing formation reduces at least a localized bending resistance ([0013], capable of intended use as the notch itself does not have a bending resistance and thus has a reduced localized bending resistance compared to areas without a notch) which cases tearing of the restraining member into two pieces during an emergency situation ([0013], capable of intended use).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to provide that a forceful unlocking of the restraining member of the remote-controlled restraint device of Hong in view of Keberle is operated through a tearing-easing formation of the restraining member, and wherein the tearing-easing formation reduces at least a localized bending resistance which cases tearing of the restraining member into two pieces during an emergency situation, as taught by Bandorf, in order to provide an improved remote-controlled wearable restraint device that hat that facilitates separation of the restraining member (Bandorf, [0013]).
Hong in view of Keberle and in further view of Bandorf discloses the invention as described above.
The combination further discloses wherein a forceful unlocking of the remote-controlled wearable restraint device is operated through a tearing-easing formation of the restraining member (In the combination, Hong discloses the remote-controlled wearable restraint device that includes a restraining member and Bandorf teaches a tearing-easing formation of the restraining member, so in the combination a forceful unlocking of the remote-controlled wearable restraint device is operated through a tearing-easing formation of the restraining member, as the restraining member is a part of the remote-controlled wearable restraint device in the combination).
Regarding claim 26, Hong in view of Keberle and in further view of Bandorf discloses the invention as described above with regard to claim 25.
The combination further discloses wherein the forceful unlocking of the remote-controlled wearable restraint device is operated mechanically, and the tearing-easing formation includes a notch (Hong discloses a remote-controlled wearable restraint device and Bandorf teaches operating mechanically [tearing, Bandorf, [0013]] where the restraining member [belt] is torn at the notch [Bandorf, [0013]).
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 GINA MCCARTHY whose telephone number is (408)918-7594. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00-3:30 PT.
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, Alireza Nia can be reached at 571-270-3076. 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.
/G.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 3786
/ALIREZA NIA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3786
Prosecution Insights