DETAILED ACTION
This is a first action on the merits of application 18503173.
Claims 1-9 are pending.
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 1-9 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 1-2, the limitations regarding "said first bag rotating posteriorly", "said first bag
rotating anteriorly", "said second bag rotating posteriorly", "said second bag rotating anteriorly" are not well defined, as it is not clear from the disclosure what is structurally defined that allows the first and second bag to rotate by buoyancy. The disclosure in Par. 42 notes the bags are attached by hinges 22 that enable a user to rotate 360 degrees while each bag remains in a horizontal position, thereby appearing that the bags remain in a horizontal position regardless of the user's position, and when the limitations are read, the limitations seem to suggest the same. However, when looking at the drawings, it is clear that the bags follow the user, and therefore do not rotate about the seam as claimed, as the bag is fixed relative to seam, but rather rotates with the user to remain in line with user. Appropriate clarification to the claim language should be made.
Regarding claim 2, the limitations of "said first flap being configured to overly a right part of the
waist" and "said second flap being configured to overly a left part of the waist" are not well defined, as the term "overly" is not well defined and does not appear to be defined by the specification. It appears what is meant by the claim is that the first flap is configured to fit over a right part of the waist and the second flap is configured to fit over a left part of the waist and will be interpreted as such for examination purposes.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denbo (U.S. 1752969) in view of Chamberlain (U.S. 2898610)
Claim 1, Denbo discloses a device to be worn by a swimmer shifting between a prone position and a supine position during swimming instruction, comprising: a belt (Fig. 2 belt 17) configured to be worn around a waist of the swimmer (Fig. 1, belt 17 around waist of swimmer); a first bag (Fig. 2, left bag 10) being connected to said belt and extending outwardly from said belt, and a second oblong (Fig. 2, right bag 10) shaped bag being connected to said belt, extending outwardly from said belt, and opposing said first bag (Fig. 1, two bags are opposite one another), said first bag rotating posteriorly by buoyancy when the swimmer moves to the prone position (Fig. 1, bags 10 align longitudinally with swimmer, therefore bags will be in first horizontal position when swimmer is prone, i.e. rotate with swimmer to prone position); said first bag rotating anteriorly by buoyancy when the swimmer moves to the supine position; (Fig. 1, bags 10 align longitudinally with swimmer, therefore bags will be in opposite second horizontal position when swimmer is supine i.e. rotate with swimmer to supine position) said second bag rotating posteriorly by buoyancy when the swimmer moves to the prone position; (Fig. 1, bags 10 align longitudinally with swimmer, therefore bags will be in first horizontal position when swimmer is prone, i.e. rotate with swimmer to prone position) and said second bag rotating anteriorly by buoyancy when the swimmer moves to the supine position (Fig. 1, bags 10 align longitudinally with swimmer, therefore bags will be in opposite second horizontal position when swimmer is supine i.e. rotate with swimmer to supine position) However, Denbo does not disclose said first seam being configured to align longitudinally along a left side of a waist of the swimmer; said second seam being configured to align longitudinally along a right side of the waist of the swimmer Chamberlain discloses said first bag connected to said belt along a first seam. Chamberlain discloses a seam along a bag and while Chamberlain does not explicitly disclose said first seam being configured to align longitudinally along a left side of a waist of the swimmer; said second seam being configured to align longitudinally along a right side of the waist of the swimmer; this would be a matter of duplication of parts, as Chamberlain discloses a second oblong shaped bag, and one of ordinary skill would readily recognize the seam would be present on both bags and The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. When Denbo which discloses left and right side bags is modified with the concept of having a seam as seen in Chamberlain, the combination as a whole would have the left and right bags of Denbo each having a seam as taught by Chamberlain, and the seam would be configured longitudinally. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the swim training bags of Denbo with the seam of Chamberlain to provide Denbo with the additional feature of being able to neatly fold flat when deflated to be able to store more easily (Col. 1 Lns. 40-45)
Claim 2, Denbo discloses A device to be worn by a swimmer shifting between a prone position and a supine position during swimming instruction, comprising: a first oblong shaped bag having a meridian (see annotated figure below); a second oblong shaped bag having a meridian (see annotated figure below), and a belt (Fig. 2 belt 17) for encircling a waist of a swimmer being connected to said oblong shaped bag, said belt including a first flap (see annotated figure below), a second flap (see annotated figure below), and a belt segment (see annotated figure below), said first flap being configured to overly a right part of the waist of the swimmer (see annotated figure below) and being connected to said belt segment and said first oblong shaped bag, said first flap extending medially from said meridian (see annotated figure below), and being configured to run longitudinally along the right part of the waist of the swimmer (see annotated figure below); said second flap being configured to overly a left part of the waist of the swimmer and being connected to said belt segment (see annotated figure below), and said second oblong shaped bag, said second flap extending medially from said meridian (see annotated figure below), and being configured to run longitudinally along the left part of the waist of the swimmer (see annotated figure below),
PNG
media_image1.png
1208
2400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
said first oblong bag rotating posteriorly by buoyancy when the swimmer moves to the prone position (Fig. 1, bags 10 align longitudinally with swimmer, therefore bags will be in first horizontal position when swimmer is prone, i.e. rotate with swimmer to prone position); said first oblong bag rotating anteriorly by buoyancy when the swimmer moves to the supine
position (Fig. 1, bags 10 align longitudinally with swimmer, therefore bags will be in opposite second horizontal position when swimmer is supine i.e. rotate with swimmer to supine position); said second oblong bag rotating posteriorly by buoyancy when the swimmer moves to the prone position (Fig. 1, bags 10 align longitudinally with swimmer, therefore bags will be in first horizontal position when swimmer is prone, i.e. rotate with swimmer to prone position),
and said second oblong bag rotating anteriorly by buoyancy when the swimmer moves to the
supine position (Fig. 1, bags 10 align longitudinally with swimmer, therefore bags will be in opposite second horizontal position when swimmer is supine i.e. rotate with swimmer to supine position). However, Denbo does not disclose said first flap having a first seam being connected along said meridian, said second flap having a second seam being connected along said meridian
Chamberlain discloses said first bag connected to said belt along a first seam. Chamberlain discloses a seam along a bag and while Chamberlain does not explicitly disclose said second bag being connected to said belt along a second seam, this would be a matter of duplication of parts, as Chamberlain discloses a second oblong shaped bag, and one of ordinary skill would readily recognize the seam would be present on both bags and The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the swim training bags of Denbo with the seam of Chamberlain to provide Denbo with the additional feature of being able to neatly fold flat when deflated to be able to store more easily (Col. 1 Lns. 40-45).
Claim 3, Denbo discloses said first oblong shaped bag has a length (Fig. 2, bag 10 has length) However, Denbo does not disclose said first seam has a length equal to one half of said length of said first oblong shaped bag. Chamberlain discloses said oblong shaped bag has a length and said seam has a length (see Fig. 1, oblong shaped object 10 has length and seam has length) and while Chamberlain does not explicitly disclose said hinge has a length equal to one half of said length of said oblong shaped bag, The Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the seam of Chamberlain to a length of half of the oblong shaped bag as a matter of change in size and design choice.
Claim 4, Denbo further discloses said belt further includes: a further belt segment being connected to said first flap and said second flap (Fig. 2, belt segment 17 connected to both first flap and second flap).
Claim 5, Denbo discloses said belt has a buckle and said buckle allows said belt to adjust to a circumference (Col. 2 Lns. 10-15, adjustable belt strap 17, 18 to secure device) While Denbo does not explicitly disclose between sixty centimeters and one hundred thirty centimeters, this would be a matter of change in size and the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to allow the adjustable belt of Denbo to adjust between the claimed range.
Claim 6, Denbo discloses said belt segment adjusts (Col. 2 Lns. 10-15, adjustable belt strap 17, 18 to secure device) While Denbo does not explicitly disclose from nineteen centimeters to forty one centimeters, this would be a matter of change in size and the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to allow the adjustable belt of Denbo to adjust between the claimed range.
Claim 8, Denbo discloses said first bag is oblong shaped (Fig. 2, bag 10 has greater length than width, i.e. oblong)
Claim 9, Denbo discloses said first bag is connected to said belt (Fig. 2, bag 10 connected to belt 17) However, Denbo does not disclose said first bag is connected to said belt by said first seam and only said first seam. Chamberlain discloses said first bag is connected to said belt by said first seam (see annotated figure below) and while does not explicitly disclose by only said first seam, this would be a matter of design choice as Denbo discloses said first bag connected to said belt and when modified by Chamberlain which discloses it is known to connect a bag to a belt via a bag seam, the combination as a whole would suggest the bag of Denbo being connected to belt via a bag seam as seen in Chamberlain. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the swim training bags of Denbo with the seam of Chamberlain to provide Denbo with the additional feature of being able to neatly fold flat when deflated to be able to store more easily (Col. 1 Lns. 40-45).
Method Claim 7, Under the principles of combination, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would obviously perform or be made by the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be obvious by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out or being made by the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will obviously perform or be made by the claimed process.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOVON E HAYES whose telephone number is (571)272-3115. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6pm M-F.
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, Samuel Morano can be reached at 571-272-6684. 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.
/JOVON E HAYES/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615