Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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) 1-3, 5, and 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwab (US 3875933) in view of Mangold (US 2018/0317732) and Park (KR 101918002 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Schwab teaches a back and body moisturizing device comprising an elastic woven middle portion (10) that functions as an application band for a low-viscosity topical preparation applied to the elastic woven middle portion, where the elastic woven middle portion is configured to hold the low viscosity topical preparation in manner that loosely retains the low-viscosity topical preparation until a mechanical pressure is applied to the elastic woven middle portion and elastic pull strings (15) at each end of the elastic woven middle portion, wherein the elastic woven middle portion comprises a natural thread material and a synthetic thread material (cotton and nylon, col. 1, ll. 64-66).
Martin does not teach that, wherein the elastic woven middle portion comprises an abrasive side comprising a urethane abrasive layer and a softer side composed of a material and weave that is loosely absorbent of the low-viscosity topical preparation, and wherein the elastic woven middle portion comprises a non-homogenous weave pattern with at least two segments having different weave patterns.
Mangold teaches an abrasive side (102) comprising a urethane abrasive layer (112, see ¶0050) and a softer side (side opposite of 102 may be uncoated, see ¶0001).
Park teaches a non-homogenous weave pattern with at least two segments (100, 200) having different weave patterns.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the woven middle portion of Schwab with an abrasive side comprising a urethane abrasive layer and a softer side composed of a material and weave that is loosely absorbent of the low-viscosity topical preparation as taught by Mangold for the purpose of increasing the exfoliating effect of the woven middle portion (Mangold ¶0010)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the woven middle portion of Schwab to include a non-homogenous weave pattern with at least two segments having different weave patterns as taught by Park for the purpose of providing the woven portion with vent portions that allow for evaporation (Park, first paragraph of pg. 3).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Schwab, Mangold and Park teaches the back and body moisturizing device of claim 1, the elastic pull strings are configured to apply the elastic woven middle portion on a user's back to apply the low-viscosity topical preparation (Schab, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Schwab, Mangold and Park teaches the back and body moisturizing device of claim 2, wherein the low- viscosity topical preparation comprises a body lotion (the modified Schwab device would be capable of applying a body lotion).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Schwab, Mangold and Park teaches the back and body moisturizing device of claim 3, wherein the elastic woven middle portion comprising a specified number of rows of a pair of braiding patterns combined together (Park Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Schwab, Mangold and Park teaches the back and body moisturizing device of claim 5, but does not teach that that an interior portion of two braiding patterns is created by a crochet tool that weaves the two braiding patterns together.
The limitation "an interior portion of two braiding patterns is created by a crochet tool that weaves the two braiding patterns togethers" is being interpreted as a product-by-process limitation. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product-by-process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP 2113.
In this case, the combination of Schwab, Mangold, and Park teaches does not teach the process by which the braids are joined. However, the final structure of both the combination of Schwab, Mangold, and Park and the claimed invention is that of multiple braids with an interior portion formed by joining adjacent braids to each other.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Schwab, Mangold, and Park teaches the back and body moisturizing device of claim 7, wherein the two braiding patterns is a crocheted connecting pattern that is repeated to every other strand of braiding patterns.
At the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have made the device of Yamane such that the two braiding patterns is a crocheted connecting pattern that is repeated to every other strand of braiding patterns because Applicant has not disclosed that the braiding pattern provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the combination and the applicant's invention to perform equally well with either the braids taught by Park or the claimed two braiding patterns is a crocheted connecting pattern that is repeated to every other strand of braiding patterns because both sets of braids are equally capable of applying lotion to a user's back. It is noted that Applicant lists a variety of braiding and weaving patterns in paragraphs 0028-0037 and does not disclose any particular advantage or disadvantage for any of them.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the braids of Yamane to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of the combination of Schwab, Mangold, and Park.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Schwab, Mangold, and Park teaches the back and body moisturizing device of claim 8, wherein the braid strands comprises patterns of three over-under-over-under braids.
At the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have made the device of Yamane such that the braid strands comprises patterns of three over-under-over-under braids because Applicant has not disclosed that the braiding pattern provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the combination and the applicant's invention to perform equally well with either the braids taught by Park or the claimed braid strands that comprise patterns of three over-under-over-under braids because both sets of braids are equally capable of applying lotion to a user's back. It is noted that Applicant lists a variety of braiding and weaving patterns in paragraphs 0028-0037 and does not disclose any particular advantage or disadvantage for any of them.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the braids of Yamane to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of the combination of Schwab, Mangold, and Park.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Schwab, Mangold, and Park teaches the back and body moisturizing device of claim 9, wherein a braid strand is three inches and one-eighth an inch in width.
At the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have made the device of Yamane such that a braid strand is three inches and one-eighth an inch in width because Applicant has not disclosed that the size of the braid provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the combination and the applicant's invention to perform equally well with braids with an undisclosed width taught by Yamane or the claimed braid strand that is three inches and one-eighth an inch in width because both sets of braids are equally capable of applying lotion to a user's back.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the braids of Yamane to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Schwab, Mangold, and Park.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 BRADLEY S OLIVER whose telephone number is (571)270-3787. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7-3 ET.
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, David Angwin can be reached at (571)270-3735. 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.
/BRADLEY S OLIVER/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/DAVID P ANGWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754