DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 12/6/2023 has been acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Holland on 6/8/2021.
Status of Application
Claims 27-53 are pending.
Claims 27, 52, and 53 are the independent claims.
Non-Final Office Action
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
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
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"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein that the claims do not contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f).
Claim Objections
Claims 27, 29, 52, and 53 have typographical errors that need to be corrected. These claims state “-seen in use-“ and is narrative in form. The Claims are supposed to cite the form or function and not the intended use or a narrative description. Removing such language would remove this objection.
This Office suggests going through all claims and looking for similar errors as the above listed errors, as the above list was exemplary in nature and by no means exhaustive. Appropriate action is required.
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 27-53 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 27, 52, and 53 state “a sharp tilting angle” and the metes and bounds of the term “sharp” is relative, thus indefinite. What is sharp, what is not sharp? What are the metes and bounds? As currently presented, Claims 27, 52, and 53 fail to clearly recite the metes and bounds are thus indefinite. The Office suggest removing the term for clarity and will be interpreted as such. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 50 state “A use” of swimming aid and this limitation is unclear for multiple reasons. First, is this claim a apparatus or method claim? If an apparatus claim, then the structure that performs the function would read. If this claim is a new method claim, first what is the actual step of the claim? The citation of “including an application with swimming instructions” is not a positively recited step, thus the method has no steps, thus is indefinite. Finally, this appears to be an intended use of the apparatus of Claim 27, thus carries little if no patentable weight, since it’s the structure, not the use, especially when there are not steps to follow. As currently presented, Claim 50 fails to clearly recite the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter, thus it is indefinite. The Office is going to interpret this as any structure that would be met by Claim 27. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 51 states “the use” of swimming aid and this limitation is also unclear for multiple reasons. First, is this claim a apparatus or method claim? If an apparatus claim, then the structure that performs the function would read. If this claim is a new method claim, first what is the actual step of the claim? The citation of “instructions for limiting the tilting movement” is not a positively recited step for a method, thus the method has no steps, thus is indefinite. Finally, this appears to be an intended use of the apparatus of Claim 27, thus carries little if no patentable weight, since it’s the structure, not the use, especially when there are not steps to follow. As currently presented, Claim 51 fails to clearly recite the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter, thus it is indefinite. The Office is going to interpret this as any structure that would be met by Claim 27. Appropriate action is required.
Claims 28-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 27-31, 36-41, and 43-51 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Jeffrey (United States Patent 5,746,633).
With respect to Claim 27: While Jeffrey discloses “A swimming aid which is arranged to increase a user's buoyancy in the water” [Jeffrey Col 1 lines 45-64 with Figures 7-8 (personal flotation devices, and particularly to flotation devices adapted for positioning at the shoulders or about the neck of a user, and having front and rear float portions)];
“wherein the swimming aid comprises a supporting structure with a back float” [Jeffrey Col 1 lines 45-64 with Figures 7-8 (personal flotation devices, and particularly to flotation devices adapted for positioning at the shoulders or about the neck of a user, and having front and rear float portions)];
“wherein the supporting structure is configured to secure the swimming aid to a user's upper body” [Jeffrey Col 1 lines 45-64 with Figures 7-8 (A harness connected with the float comprises a belt to be disposed about the user, at least one shoulder strap extending between the belt and float, and elastic straps between the harness and the float. The elastic straps preferably comprise a plurality of elastic straps connected with the belt and with the front and rear float portions)];
“wherein the back float - seen in use - is tiltable about a transverse axis connected to the supporting structure” [Jeffrey Col 4 lines 7-35 with Figures 7-8 (The hinge seams 28 enable the float front and rear portions to bend readily relative to each other, to provide increased buoyancy to maintain the user's head above water. With the float and user in the water, the front and rear portions 22, 24 can tilt downwardly and be positioned to a depth in the water greater than otherwise would be provided. Improved or additional buoyancy is provided to the child or other user, and serves to maintain the head above water and maintain the float away from the user's face. The hinge seams 28 and elastic straps 36 maintain the float away from the user's face and maintain the child's or user's head above the float and the water level)];
“wherein a tilting movement of the back float to the supporting structure is limited to a sharp tilting angle α in between the supporting structure and the back” [Jeffrey Col 4 lines 7-35 with Figures 7-8 (The hinge seams 28 enable the float front and rear portions to bend readily relative to each other, to provide increased buoyancy to maintain the user's head above water. With the float and user in the water, the front and rear portions 22, 24 can tilt downwardly and be positioned to a depth in the water greater than otherwise would be provided. Improved or additional buoyancy is provided to the child or other user, and serves to maintain the head above water and maintain the float away from the user's face. The hinge seams 28 and elastic straps 36 maintain the float away from the user's face and maintain the child's or user's head above the float and the water level);
Jeffrey does not specifically state what angles the tilt of the rear floats are limited to. The drawings do show that it is less than 90 degrees and further explaining it varies but the specification of at most of 45 degree is missing.
First, Jeffrey discloses the claimed invention except for the limitation of the angle of no more than 45 degrees. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to choose almost any angel of limiting the floatation devices, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,265 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Second, it is the Office's stance that the choice of no more than 45 degrees of the angle of the back float, without any explanation of any well-known benefit or a new and unexpected result of choosing 45 degrees over any other value is a mere design choice. Limiting the angle of floatation devices is well known (Jeffrey) and systems limiting the angles in which flotation devices float are also known; further by differentiating the claimed subject matter by an art known feature without reciting a new and unexpected result would be an obvious design choice and involves only routine skill in the art. Further, applicants own specification states values such as “no more than 60 degrees” thus demonstrating the number is clearly a design choice. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of choosing any wired or wireless communication protocol and it would have been obvious and the design choice would have produced predictable results.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate KSR and Design Choice features into the invention of Jeffrey to not only include limiting the angles in which a back float floats as Jeffrey discloses but to also choose an angle to limit the angle of the floats as taught by KSR and Design Choice features with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of KSR and Design Choice features into Jeffrey to create a more robust system that can limit the angle of floatation devices by any user desired selected angle, thus creating a more personable floatation device. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as limiting angles of floatation devices and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 28: Jeffrey discloses “The swimming aid according to claim 27, wherein the transverse axis for a tilting movement of the back float is positioned substantially at a level of an armhole of the supporting structure” [Jeffrey Col 4 lines 7-35 with Figures 7-8 (The hinge seams 28 enable the float front and rear portions to bend readily relative to each other, to provide increased buoyancy to maintain the user's head above water. With the float and user in the water, the front and rear portions 22, 24 can tilt downwardly and be positioned to a depth in the water greater than otherwise would be provided. Improved or additional buoyancy is provided to the child or other user, and serves to maintain the head above water and maintain the float away from the user's face. The hinge seams 28 and elastic straps 36 maintain the float away from the user's face and maintain the child's or user's head above the float and the water level)].
With respect to Claim 29: Jeffrey discloses “The swimming aid according to claim 27, wherein the back float is connected to the supporting structure by an - seen in use - upper attachment of the back float, the upper attachment substantially allows the back float to be tilted relative to the supporting structure” [Jeffrey Col 4 lines 7-35 with Figures 7-8 (The hinge seams 28 enable the float front and rear portions to bend readily relative to each other, to provide increased buoyancy to maintain the user's head above water. With the float and user in the water, the front and rear portions 22, 24 can tilt downwardly and be positioned to a depth in the water greater than otherwise would be provided. Improved or additional buoyancy is provided to the child or other user, and serves to maintain the head above water and maintain the float away from the user's face. The hinge seams 28 and elastic straps 36 maintain the float away from the user's face and maintain the child's or user's head above the float and the water level)].
With respect to Claim 30: Jeffrey discloses “The swimming aid according to claim 29, wherein the upper attachment is positioned at the level of an armhole of the supporting structure” [Jeffrey Col 4 lines 7-35 with Figures 7-8 (The hinge seams 28 enable the float front and rear portions to bend readily relative to each other, to provide increased buoyancy to maintain the user's head above water. With the float and user in the water, the front and rear portions 22, 24 can tilt downwardly and be positioned to a depth in the water greater than otherwise would be provided. Improved or additional buoyancy is provided to the child or other user, and serves to maintain the head above water and maintain the float away from the user's face. The hinge seams 28 and elastic straps 36 maintain the float away from the user's face and maintain the child's or user's head above the float and the water level)].
With respect to Claim 31: Jeffrey discloses “The swimming aid according to claim 29, wherein the upper attachment of the back float comprises a left and a right float attachment” [Jeffrey Col 4 lines 7-35 with Figures 7-8 (The hinge seams 28 enable the float front and rear portions to bend readily relative to each other, to provide increased buoyancy to maintain the user's head above water. With the float and user in the water, the front and rear portions 22, 24 can tilt downwardly and be positioned to a depth in the water greater than otherwise would be provided. Improved or additional buoyancy is provided to the child or other user, and serves to maintain the head above water and maintain the float away from the user's face. The hinge seams 28 and elastic straps 36 maintain the float away from the user's face and maintain the child's or user's head above the float and the water level)].
With respect to Claim 36: Jeffrey discloses “The swimming device according to claim 27, further comprising a lower attachment to the back float, the lower attachment limiting a movement of the back float away from the supporting structure over a pre-determined distance such that the back float becomes positioned in the water at a tilted angle a relative to the supporting structure” [Jeffrey Col 4 lines 7-35 with Figures 7-8 (The hinge seams 28 enable the float front and rear portions to bend readily relative to each other, to provide increased buoyancy to maintain the user's head above water. With the float and user in the water, the front and rear portions 22, 24 can tilt downwardly and be positioned to a depth in the water greater than otherwise would be provided. Improved or additional buoyancy is provided to the child or other user, and serves to maintain the head above water and maintain the float away from the user's face. The hinge seams 28 and elastic straps 36 maintain the float away from the user's face and maintain the child's or user's head above the float and the water level)].
With respect to Claim 37: Jeffrey discloses “The swimming aid according to claim 36, wherein the lower attachment is positioned at the level of a bottom edge of the supporting structure” [Jeffrey Col 4 lines 7-35 with Figures 7-8 (The hinge seams 28 enable the float front and rear portions to bend readily relative to each other, to provide increased buoyancy to maintain the user's head above water. With the float and user in the water, the front and rear portions 22, 24 can tilt downwardly and be positioned to a depth in the water greater than otherwise would be provided. Improved or additional buoyancy is provided to the child or other user, and serves to maintain the head above water and maintain the float away from the user's face. The hinge seams 28 and elastic straps 36 maintain the float away from the user's face and maintain the child's or user's head above the float and the water level)].
With respect to Claim 38: While Jeffrey discloses “The swimming aid according to claim 36, wherein the diverging movement limiting the lower attachment is possible over a predetermined distance” [Jeffrey Col 4 lines 7-35 with Figures 7-8 (The hinge seams 28 enable the float front and rear portions to bend readily relative to each other, to provide increased buoyancy to maintain the user's head above water. With the float and user in the water, the front and rear portions 22, 24 can tilt downwardly and be positioned to a depth in the water greater than otherwise would be provided. Improved or additional buoyancy is provided to the child or other user, and serves to maintain the head above water and maintain the float away from the user's face. The hinge seams 28 and elastic straps 36 maintain the float away from the user's face and maintain the child's or user's head above the float and the water level)].
Jeffrey does not specifically state the minimum length of the lower attachments.
First, Jeffrey discloses the claimed invention except for the limitation of the limit of the lower attachments. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to choose almost any length of the lower attachments on a floatation device, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,265 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Second, it is the Office's stance that the choice of at least 10 cm degrees of length on the lower attachments, without any explanation of any well-known benefit or a new and unexpected result of choosing 10 cm over any other value is a mere design choice. Limiting the length of attachments for floatation devices is well known and systems limiting the length in which flotation devices are connected is also known; further by differentiating the claimed subject matter by an art known feature without reciting a new and unexpected result would be an obvious design choice and involves only routine skill in the art. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of choosing any wired or wireless communication protocol and it would have been obvious and the design choice would have produced predictable results.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate KSR and Design Choice features into the invention of Jeffrey to not only include using a length of attachments in which a back float is connected to the supports as Jeffrey discloses but to also choose an length to limit the connection as taught by KSR and Design Choice features with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of KSR and Design Choice features into Jeffrey to create a more robust system that can limit the angle of floatation devices by any user desired selected length, thus creating a more personable floatation device. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as limiting angles of floatation devices and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 39: Jeffrey discloses “The swimming aid according to claim 38, wherein the predetermined distance of the diverging movement of the back float is determined by an end stop” [Jeffrey Col 4 lines 7-35 with Figures 7-8 (The hinge seams 28 enable the float front and rear portions to bend readily relative to each other, to provide increased buoyancy to maintain the user's head above water. With the float and user in the water, the front and rear portions 22, 24 can tilt downwardly and be positioned to a depth in the water greater than otherwise would be provided. Improved or additional buoyancy is provided to the child or other user, and serves to maintain the head above water and maintain the float away from the user's face. The hinge seams 28 and elastic straps 36 maintain the float away from the user's face and maintain the child's or user's head above the float and the water level)].
With respect to Claim 40: Jeffrey discloses “The swimming aid according to claim 39, wherein the end stop is made from a flexible line element, such as a cord or strip of neoprene” [Jeffrey Col 4 lines 7-35 with Figures 7-8 (The hinge seams 28 enable the float front and rear portions to bend readily relative to each other, to provide increased buoyancy to maintain the user's head above water. With the float and user in the water, the front and rear portions 22, 24 can tilt downwardly and be positioned to a depth in the water greater than otherwise would be provided. Improved or additional buoyancy is provided to the child or other user, and serves to maintain the head above water and maintain the float away from the user's face. The hinge seams 28 and elastic straps 36 maintain the float away from the user's face and maintain the child's or user's head above the float and the water level)].
With respect to Claim 41: Jeffrey discloses “The swimming aid according to claim 38, wherein the predetermined distance of the lower attachment of the back float is adjustable to allow that a tilted angle a is adjustable to allow the back float to rotate relative to the supporting structure” [Jeffrey Col 4 lines 7-35 with Figures 7-8 (The hinge seams 28 enable the float front and rear portions to bend readily relative to each other, to provide increased buoyancy to maintain the user's head above water. With the float and user in the water, the front and rear portions 22, 24 can tilt downwardly and be positioned to a depth in the water greater than otherwise would be provided. Improved or additional buoyancy is provided to the child or other user, and serves to maintain the head above water and maintain the float away from the user's face. The hinge seams 28 and elastic straps 36 maintain the float away from the user's face and maintain the child's or user's head above the float and the water level)].
With respect to Claim 43: Jeffrey discloses “The swimming aid according to claim 27, wherein the supporting structure constitutes a vest” [Jeffrey with Figures 6-7].
With respect to Claim 44: Jeffrey discloses “The swimming aid according to claim 43, wherein the vest has a left and a right armhole for accommodating a left and a right arm of the user, respectively, and wherein a vest clasp is provided on a chest section of the vest” [Jeffrey with Figures 6-7].
With respect to Claim 45: Jeffrey discloses “The swimming aid according to claim 27, wherein the supporting structure of the swimming aid constitutes a harness, wherein the harness is provided with a left and right shoulder strap and has a chest section for fastening the left and right shoulder strap” [Jeffrey Col 2 line 66 – Col 3 line 9 with Figures 2, 6-7 (The belt strap 42 extends about the torso or chest of the user 30 and has a first end 50 and a second end 52. The first and second ends 50 and 52 terminate in mating buckle portions 54 and 56, respectively. The male buckle portion 56 can be quickly and easily snapped into and released therefrom a female buckle portion 54. An adjusting member 58 may also be provided on one of the strap portions, such as portion 54, for quickly and easily adjusting the overall length of the first and second ends 50 and 52 for securing the belt strap 42 about the person 30. Alternatively, the first and second ends 50 and 52 may be one integral piece stitched or otherwise fastened together)].
With respect to Claim 46: While Jeffrey discloses “The swimming aid according to claim 45, wherein the chest section is fixated to the left and right shoulder straps in such a way that a neck opening is formed through which a user's head can be inserted for putting on the swimming aid” [Jeffrey Col 4 lines 7-35 with Figures 2, 6-7 (The hinge seams 28 enable the float front and rear portions to bend readily relative to each other, to provide increased buoyancy to maintain the user's head above water. With the float and user in the water, the front and rear portions 22, 24 can tilt downwardly and be positioned to a depth in the water greater than otherwise would be provided. Improved or additional buoyancy is provided to the child or other user, and serves to maintain the head above water and maintain the float away from the user's face. The hinge seams 28 and elastic straps 36 maintain the float away from the user's face and maintain the child's or user's head above the float and the water level)].
With respect to Claim 47: While Jeffrey discloses “The swimming aid according to claim 45, wherein the harness is further provided with a chest strap for clasping the harness around a chest of a user, wherein the chest section particularly comprises a chest clasp for fastening and unfastening the chest strap” [Jeffrey Col 4 lines 7-35 with Figures 2, 6-7 (The hinge seams 28 enable the float front and rear portions to bend readily relative to each other, to provide increased buoyancy to maintain the user's head above water. With the float and user in the water, the front and rear portions 22, 24 can tilt downwardly and be positioned to a depth in the water greater than otherwise would be provided. Improved or additional buoyancy is provided to the child or other user, and serves to maintain the head above water and maintain the float away from the user's face. The hinge seams 28 and elastic straps 36 maintain the float away from the user's face and maintain the child's or user's head above the float and the water level)].
With respect to Claim 48: While Jeffrey discloses “The swimming aid according to claim 47, wherein the chest strap together with the left and right shoulder straps form a left and right armhole for enclosing an arm of the user, wherein the chest strap is designed to engage with a lower portion of the rib cage of the user” [Jeffrey Col 4 lines 7-35 with Figures 2, 6-7 (The hinge seams 28 enable the float front and rear portions to bend readily relative to each other, to provide increased buoyancy to maintain the user's head above water. With the float and user in the water, the front and rear portions 22, 24 can tilt downwardly and be positioned to a depth in the water greater than otherwise would be provided. Improved or additional buoyancy is provided to the child or other user, and serves to maintain the head above water and maintain the float away from the user's face. The hinge seams 28 and elastic straps 36 maintain the float away from the user's face and maintain the child's or user's head above the float and the water level)].
With respect to Claim 49: While Jeffrey discloses “The swimming aid according to claim 45, wherein the harness comprises a groin strap for enclosing an upper body of a user together with the left and right shoulder straps” [Jeffrey Col 4 lines 7-35 with Figures 2, 6-7 (The hinge seams 28 enable the float front and rear portions to bend readily relative to each other, to provide increased buoyancy to maintain the user's head above water. With the float and user in the water, the front and rear portions 22, 24 can tilt downwardly and be positioned to a depth in the water greater than otherwise would be provided. Improved or additional buoyancy is provided to the child or other user, and serves to maintain the head above water and maintain the float away from the user's face. The hinge seams 28 and elastic straps 36 maintain the float away from the user's face and maintain the child's or user's head above the float and the water level)].
With respect to Claim 50: Jeffrey discloses “A use of the swimming aid according to claim 27 in a teaching method for acquiring a swimming skill, wherein the swimming aid further includes an application with swimming instructions” [Jeffrey, Col 4 lines 63-65 (use of the flotation device 10 as a swimming aid)].
Examiners Note - Intended Use
Claim 50 uses “intended use” claim language and it is the Office’s stance that this language is not clear, as currently presented, and does not carry much patentable weight. Using the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI), the terms “A use” that is recited in the above mentioned claims conveys the “intended use” of certain elements of each claim and for examining purposes, only the elements with patentable weight and not the uses need to be addressed.
For example, Claim 50 states “A use of the swimming aid according to claim 27 in a teaching method for acquiring a swimming skill, wherein the swimming aid further includes an application with swimming instructions” and this intended use language would not carry patentable weight since it is the intended use of the swimming aid of Claim 27. The Office suggests rewriting these claims to remove the “intended use" phrases which would make the claims more clear and better mark the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter.
With respect to Claim 51: Jeffrey discloses “The use according to claim 50, wherein the teaching method comprises a step with instructions for limiting a tilting movement a of the back float in relation to the supporting structure” [Jeffrey, Col 4 lines 63-65 (use of the flotation device 10 as a swimming aid)].
Examiners Note - Intended Use
Claim 51 uses “intended use” claim language and it is the Office’s stance that this language is not clear, as currently presented, and does not carry much patentable weight. Using the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI), the terms “The use” that is recited in the above mentioned claims conveys the “intended use” of certain elements of each claim and for examining purposes, only the elements with patentable weight and not the uses need to be addressed.
For example, Claim 51 states “The use according to claim 50, wherein the teaching method comprises a step with instructions for limiting a tilting movement a of the back float in relation to the supporting structure” and this intended use language would not carry patentable weight since it is the intended use of the swimming aid of Claim 27. The Office suggests rewriting these claims to remove the “intended use" phrases which would make the claims more clear and better mark the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter.
Claims 32-33 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Jeffrey (United States Patent 5,746,633) in view of Campbell (United States Patent 5,766,114).
With respect to Claim 32: While Jeffrey discloses “The swimming aid according to claim 29, wherein the upper attachment of the back float is positioned on the rear side of the supporting structure” [Jeffrey Col 4 lines 7-35 with Figures 7-8 (The hinge seams 28 enable the float front and rear portions to bend readily relative to each other, to provide increased buoyancy to maintain the user's head above water. With the float and user in the water, the front and rear portions 22, 24 can tilt downwardly and be positioned to a depth in the water greater than otherwise would be provided. Improved or additional buoyancy is provided to the child or other user, and serves to maintain the head above water and maintain the float away from the user's face. The hinge seams 28 and elastic straps 36 maintain the float away from the user's face and maintain the child's or user's head above the float and the water level)];
Jeffrey does not connect in a centrally located position for the connection.
Campbell, which is also a floatation device with back floats, teaches “wherein the upper attachment of the back float is positioned centrally on the rear side of the supporting structure” [Campbell, Col 4 line 62- Col 5 line 11 with Figure 8 (and back float loops 22 allow back float 16 to pivot with respect to the wearer as the wearer alters the longitudinal axis of his body with respect to vertical in the water)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Campbell into the invention of Jeffrey to not only include attaching floating devices to structure worn by a user as Jeffrey discloses but to also attach the floatation devices central to the use as taught by Campbell with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Campbell into Jeffrey to create a more robust system that “allow back float 16 to pivot with respect to the wearer as the wearer alters the longitudinal axis of his body with respect to vertical in the water” [Campbell Col 4 line 62- Col 5 line 11]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as back floats for swimming aid connections and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 33: While Jeffrey discloses “The swimming aid according to claim 29, wherein the upper attachment of the back float allows a tilting movement of the back float” [Jeffrey Col 4 lines 7-35 with Figures 7-8 (The hinge seams 28 enable the float front and rear portions to bend readily relative to each other, to provide increased buoyancy to maintain the user's head above water. With the float and user in the water, the front and rear portions 22, 24 can tilt downwardly and be positioned to a depth in the water greater than otherwise would be provided. Improved or additional buoyancy is provided to the child or other user, and serves to maintain the head above water and maintain the float away from the user's face. The hinge seams 28 and elastic straps 36 maintain the float away from the user's face and maintain the child's or user's head above the float and the water level)].
Jeffrey does not specifically state that the upper connection allows for tilting.
Campbell, which is also a floatation device with back floats, teaches “wherein the upper attachment of the back float is made from a flexible line element, wherein the line element allows a tilting movement of the back float” [Campbell, Col 4 line 62- Col 5 line 11 with Figure 8 (and back float loops 22 allow back float 16 to pivot with respect to the wearer as the wearer alters the longitudinal axis of his body with respect to vertical in the water)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Campbell into the invention of Jeffrey to not only include attaching floating devices to structure worn by a user as Jeffrey discloses but to also attach the floatation devices central that allows tilting as taught by Campbell with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Campbell into Jeffrey to create a more robust system that “allow back float 16 to pivot with respect to the wearer as the wearer alters the longitudinal axis of his body with respect to vertical in the water” [Campbell Col 4 line 62- Col 5 line 11]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as back floats for swimming aid connections and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Jeffrey (United States Patent 5,746,633) in view of Masse (United States Patent 6,346,021).
With respect to Claim 42: While Jeffrey discloses “The swimming aid according to claim 27, wherein the back float is a floatation product” [Jeffrey Col 4 lines 7-35 with Figures 7-8 (The hinge seams 28 enable the float front and rear portions to bend readily relative to each other, to provide increased buoyancy to maintain the user's head above water. With the float and user in the water, the front and rear portions 22, 24 can tilt downwardly and be positioned to a depth in the water greater than otherwise would be provided. Improved or additional buoyancy is provided to the child or other user, and serves to maintain the head above water and maintain the float away from the user's face. The hinge seams 28 and elastic straps 36 maintain the float away from the user's face and maintain the child's or user's head above the float and the water level)];
Jeffrey does not state how the floats are made.
Masse, which is also a swimming ait, teaches “wherein the back float is an injection-moulded product” [Masse Col 4 line 51-62 (The fin body 11 is a cast molding (injection mold) producing a single piece of rubber composite material)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Masse into the invention of Jeffrey to not only include attaching floating devices to structure worn by a user as Jeffrey discloses but to also create the floatation devices by injection molding as taught by Masse with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Masse into Jeffrey to create a more robust system that can use known production system for swimming aids, thus reducing he learning time for efficient production. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as back floats for swimming aid connections and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim 52 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell (United States Patent 5,766,114) in view of Jeffrey (United States Patent 5,746,633) and in further view of Mazur et al. (United States Patent 9,573,073)
With respect to Claim 52: While Campbell discloses “A swimming aid which is arranged to increase a user's buoyancy in the water” [Campbell Col 4 lines 12-55 with Figure 8 (the swimming aid configuration of toddler walking and swimming aid)];
“wherein the swimming aid comprises a supporting structure with a back float” [Campbell Col 4 lines 12-55 with Figure 8 (the swimming aid configuration of toddler walking and swimming aid)];
“wherein the supporting structure is configured to secure the swimming aid to a user's upper body” [Campbell Col 4 lines 12-55 with Figure 8 (the swimming aid configuration of toddler walking and swimming aid)];
“wherein the back float - seen in use - is tiltable about a transverse axis connected to the supporting structure” [Campbell Col 4 lines 12-55 with Figure 8 (the swimming aid configuration of toddler walking and swimming aid)];
“wherein a tilting movement of the back float to the supporting structure is limited to a sharp tilting angle α in between the supporting structure and the back float” [Campbell Col 4 lines 12-55 with Figure 8 (the swimming aid configuration of toddler walking and swimming aid)];
Campbell does not specifically state the limiting angle of back float or only have a single float device, such as a back float.
Jeffrey, which is also a swimming aid with floatation devices teaches “wherein the swimming aid comprises a supporting structure with a back float” [Jeffrey Col 4 lines 7-35 with Figures 7-8 (The hinge seams 28 enable the float front and rear portions to bend readily relative to each other, to provide increased buoyancy to maintain the user's head above water. With the float and user in the water, the front and rear portions 22, 24 can tilt downwardly and be positioned to a depth in the water greater than otherwise would be provided. Improved or additional buoyancy is provided to the child or other user, and serves to maintain the head above water and maintain the float away from the user's face. The hinge seams 28 and elastic straps 36 maintain the float away from the user's face and maintain the child's or user's head above the float and the water level];
“wherein a tilting movement of the back float to the supporting structure is limited to a sharp tilting angle α in between the supporting structure and the back float” [Jeffrey Col 4 lines 7-35 with Figures 7-8 (The hinge seams 28 enable the float front and rear portions to bend readily relative to each other, to provide increased buoyancy to maintain the user's head above water. With the float and user in the water, the front and rear portions 22, 24 can tilt downwardly and be positioned to a depth in the water greater than otherwise would be provided. Improved or additional buoyancy is provided to the child or other user, and serves to maintain the head above water and maintain the float away from the user's face. The hinge seams 28 and elastic straps 36 maintain the float away from the user's face and maintain the child's or user's head above the float and the water level].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Jeffrey into the invention of Campbell to not only include back floatation device tilts as Campbell discloses but to but to also limit the angle of the tilting of the back float as taught by Jeffrey with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Jeffrey into Campbell to create a more robust system that can “maintain the float away from the user's face and maintain the child's or user's head above the float and the water level” [Jeffrey, Col 4 lines 8-35]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as back floats for swimming aid connections and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Further, Mazur, which is also a swimming aid with floatation devices teaches “wherein the swimming aid comprises a supporting structure with no other float than a back float” [Mazur, Col 5 lines 43-39 with Figures 19-21 (The garment is fabricated of a buoyant material)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Mazur into the invention of Campbell to not only include back floatation device tilts as Campbell discloses but to but to also only have a single float device as taught by Mazur with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Mazur into Campbell to create a more robust system that can aid in swimming and floating. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as back floats for swimming aid connections and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim Objections
Claims 34-35 and 53 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS G WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached on (571)-270-0151. The fax phone 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.
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c
.