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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed with the written response received on April 15, 2025 have been considered and an action on the merits follows. As directed by the amendment, claims 1 and 7 have been amended; and claims 3, 6, and 14-20 are canceled. Accordingly, claims 1-2, 4-5, and 7-13 are pending in this application, with an action on the merits to follow regarding claims1-2, 4-5, and 7-13.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
The text in Figs. 2B, 2C, 3C, 3D, and 3E is unclear and illegible;
Fig. 2C shows different views of the personal aide and each view should be separated out into individual figures;
Figs. 1A-1F, 4-10, 11A-11B, 12A-12C, 13A-13B, and 14-16 are photographs.
Photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility and design patent applications, however, if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. For example, photographs or photomicrographs of: electrophoresis gels, blots (e.g., immunological, western, Southern, and northern), autoradiographs, cell cultures (stained and unstained), histological tissue cross sections (stained and unstained), animals, plants, in vivo imaging, thin layer chromatography plates, crystalline structures, and, in a design patent application, ornamental effects, are acceptable. If the subject matter of the application admits of illustration by a drawing, the examiner may require a drawing in place of the photograph. The photographs must be of sufficient quality so that all details in the photographs are reproducible in the printed patent. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The use of the terms “Lexan” (beginning in para. 0051) and “Velcro” (para. 0052), which are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term. For example, Applicant should recite, “VELCRO®”.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 and 4-5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 5 should recite, “[[the]] ankles”;
Claims 4-5 depend from claim 3 which was cancelled, and Examiner will treat claims 4-5 as if they depend from claim 1.
Appropriate correction 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 1-2 and 4 (and claims 5 and 7-13 at least for depending from a rejected claim) 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.
Claim 1 is indefinite as it recites, “positioning the frame of the personal aide device around the ankles of the individual; releasing the personal aide device from the undergarment when the personal aide device is at a satisfactory position on the individual; positioning the undergarment on the individual at a satisfactory position for said undergarment; and removing the personal aide device from the individual”. It is unclear how one of ordinary skill in the art can ascertain to any requisite degree what position is considered to be “satisfactory”. Further, it is unclear if each recitation of “a satisfactory position” is referring to the same position or different positions. Is the satisfactory position of the device a different position than the satisfactory position of the undergarment? Further, as currently recited, the frame is positioned around the ankles, the device is released, the undergarment is positioned, then then the device is removed. With such a layout of steps, it is unclear how the device works. How does the device get to the satisfactory position because it is only recited positioned around the ankles and then released at the satisfactory position? Is the device released from the undergarment when the device is at a satisfactory position before the undergarment is positioned on the individual at a satisfactory position? Is releasing the device from the undergarment different from removing the device from the individual?
Claim 2 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein the frame is a rigid ring-shaped frame.” As claim 1 recites, “the frame includes a non-rigid loop”, it is unclear how the frame is also rigid and unclear if a ring-shaped frame is different from a loop. This claim appears to be a drawn to a different embodiment than that recited in claim 1.
Claim 4 recites, “wherein the frame includes a first end and a second end, wherein the first end includes one or more holes, wherein the second end includes one or more fasteners, wherein the one or more holes are configured to secure the one or more fasteners.” Claim 1 recites, “the frame includes a first end and a second end, wherein the first end includes a first adhesive, wherein the second end includes a second adhesive, wherein the first adhesive is configured to secure the second adhesive”. As such, it is unclear if claim 4 is referring to the same ends or different ends. Further it is unclear if the framed has holes and fasteners as well as first and second adhesives. When looking to the drawings, the holes and fasteners are in the embodiment of Figs. 2A-2C (device 200) while the adhesives are in the Figs. 3A-3E (device 300) and therefore the claim appears to be drawn to a different embodiment than that recited in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sekel (US 2021/0282484).
Regarding claim 1, Sekel discloses method of putting an undergarment onto an individual, the method comprising: affixing the undergarment (32) to a personal aide device (10) (see para. 0024), wherein the personal aide device includes a frame (12); positioning the frame of the personal aide device around the ankles of the individual (see para. 0024, the user steps into the undergarment, and therefore it is positioned around the ankles); releasing the personal aide device from the undergarment when the personal aide device is at a satisfactory position on the individual (see disengaging in para. 0024); positioning the undergarment on the individual at a satisfactory position for said undergarment (see para. 0024 where the device, and thus the undergarment, is raised to the waistline); and removing the personal aide device from the individual (see removing in para. 0024), wherein: the frame includes a non-rigid loop (see Fig. 5 where the device is a loop and para. 0021 where frame is “semi-rigid and elastically bendable” and therefore it is not 100% rigid and considered non-rigid, further Examiner notes Applicant’s device 300 is made of Lexan or the like, see para. 00053 of the specification); and the frame includes a first end (18) and a second end (20), wherein the first end includes a first adhesive (34), wherein the second end includes a second adhesive (42), wherein the first adhesive is configured to secure the second adhesive (see paras. 0022-0023).
Examiner notes, under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. SEE MPEP 2112.02.
Regarding claim 7, Sekel discloses wherein the frame is configured to be adjusted between open (Fig. 4) and closed (Fig. 5) positions by engaging the first adhesive with the second adhesive (as the adhesives are hook and loop fastener, see paras. 0022-0023, they
Regarding claim 11, Sekel discloses wherein the undergarment includes disposable undergarments (as all garments are disposable).
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) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Whitlaw (US 2011/0315724).
Regarding claims 8-10, Sekel discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above, but does not expressly disclose the frame further comprising a cord, wherein the cord is connected to the frame at first and second opposing locations on the frame [claim 8], wherein the cord is configured to be pulled toward an individual to assist with achieving the satisfactory position of the personal aide device [claim 9], and the cord further comprising one or more connectors, wherein the one or more connectors are configured to: a) join the cord to one or more additional cords, and/or, b) secure the cord and/or one or more additional cords to the frame [claim 10].
Whitlaw teaches a dressing aid (Fig. 6B) wherein the frame (601) further comprising a cord (115), wherein the cord is connected to the frame at first and second opposing locations on the frame (see Fig. 6B, at 619A/B), wherein the cord is configured to be pulled toward an individual to assist with achieving the satisfactory position of the personal aide device (see para. 0061), and the cord further comprising one or more connectors (adhesive, see para. 0058) , wherein the one or more connectors are configured to secure the cord and/or one or more additional cords to the frame (see para. 0058).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect a pull cord to the frame of the device of Sekel as taught by Whitlaw in order to further “assist a physically challenged individual in donning undergarments and outer garments, pants or skirts, when the individual has restricted movement at the lower back, waist and/or knees” (see para. 0002 of Whitlaw) that does not have the flexibility to bend far enough to grab the frame.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Farrell (US 4130226).
Regarding claims 12-13, Sekel discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above, but does not expressly disclose wherein affixing the undergarment to the personal aide device is achieved by using one or more clips and/or pins to secure the undergarment to the frame of the personal aide device [claim 12], wherein releasing the personal aide device from the undergarment includes removing the one or more clips and/or pins from the frame of the personal aide device [claim 13].
Farrell teaches a garment applying device (Figs. 1-5) wherein affixing the undergarment (20) to the personal aide device (Figs. 1-3) is achieved by using one or more clips (12) to secure the undergarment to the frame (see col. 2, lines 55-60, and Figs. 4-5) of the personal aide device, wherein releasing the personal aide device from the undergarment includes removing the one or more clips and/or pins from the frame of the personal aide device (as when the device is not in use, the clamps are secured to ties 13, thus the clamps are removed from the frame when the device is released).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add clips to the device of Sekel as taught by Farrell “thereby providing a more secure holding of the stocking or garment on the hoop” (col. 2, lines 55-61 of Farrell).
Examiner’s Note
Examiner notes claims 2 and 4-5 are free from an art rejection as they are drawn to structures that are in direct contrast to the embodiment claimed in claim 1, see 35 USC 112(b) rejections above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed April 15, 2025, with respect to the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current grounds of rejection. In view of Applicant’s amendment, the search has been updated, and new prior art has been identified and applied. Applicant’s arguments, which appear to be drawn only to the newly amended limitations and previously presented rejections, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 CLINTON T OSTRUP whose telephone number is (571)272-5559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Edward Lefkowitz can be reached at 571-272-2180. 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.
/CLINTON T OSTRUP/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3732