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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 4-5 and 7-20 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.
Arguments directed toward Wilcox ‘019 are traversed. First, Examiner is relying on the embodiment of Fig. 3 in Wilcox, rather than the embodiment relied upon in Applicant’s remarks. Second, the middle element still appears to read on the amended claims (see below). Third, the device of Wilcox clearly sandwiches the clothing between element 30 and 42 and therefore meets the claim limitation (see figs. 1, 6).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: “a hollow washer element includes a flat element…” appears to be missing an article or punctuation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 6-7 it is unclear if the hollow washer element and the hollow washer are the same structure. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities: it depends from a canceled claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-2, 4-5 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wilcox, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0084019.
Regarding Claim 1, Wilcox teaches:
a front element (60), wherein the front element comprises an aesthetic portion (64),
wherein the front element is detachable from the apparatus and can be replaced by another front element thereby replacing the aesthetic portion (Abstract);
a middle element (40), wherein the middle element comprises a hollow washer element (fig. 3) includes a flat element (42) and a protrusion (44) that extends from the hollow washer (see below); and
a base element (30), wherein the base element comprises a base element protrusion (34) configured to penetrate a hole in a clothing, wherein the base element protrusion fits within the hollow washer element (fig. 3, 6), and wherein the base element attaches to the middle element to sandwich the clothing between the base element and the flat element of the middle element; and
wherein the front element attaches to the middle element, the base element, or both the middle element and the base element (figs. 3, 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
235
482
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Wilcox teaches:
wherein the front element comprises a front element protrusion (see 62).
Regarding Claim 4, Wilcox teaches:
wherein the front element protrusion interfaces with the middle element or base element (see 38, 62, 65, see fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 5, Wilcox teaches:
wherein the hollow washer element comprises an internal washer element threading (see 42, 43, see fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 7, Wilcox teaches:
wherein the hollow middle element protrusion comprises an internal protrusion threading (see 46 in fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 8, Wilcox teaches:
wherein the base element comprises a hollow base element protrusion, wherein the hollow base element protrusion comprises an internal base element threading and an external base element threading (see 30, 34, 35, 38 in fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 9, Wilcox teaches:
wherein the front element comprises a front element protrusion, wherein the front element protrusion comprises a front element protrusion threading that can interface with the internal base element threading (see 38, 67, see fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 10, Wilcox teaches:
wherein the middle element protrusion comprises an internal middle element protrusion threading, wherein the internal middle element protrusion threading can interface with the external base element threading (see figs. 3 and 6).
Claim(s) 1-2, 4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Orza, U.S. Patent 8,096,023.
Regarding Claim 1, Orza teaches:
A front element (3), wherein the front element comprises an aesthetic portion, wherein
the front element is detachable from the apparatus and can be replaced by another front element thereby replacing the aesthetic portion (see Col 2, Lns 35-40);
a middle element (2), wherein the middle element comprises a hollow washer element includes a flat element (see below) and a protrusion (see below) that extends from the hollow washer; and
a base element (1), wherein the base element comprises a base element protrusion (1b) configured to penetrate a hole in a clothing, wherein the base element protrusion fits within the hollow washer element, and wherein the base element attaches to the middle element to sandwich the clothing between the base element and the flat element of the middle element (see Fig. 2); and
wherein the front element attaches to the middle element, the base element, or both the middle element and the base element.
PNG
media_image2.png
363
459
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Orza teaches:
Wherein the front element comprises a front element protrusion (3a).
Regarding Claim 4, Orza teaches:
Wherein the front element protrusion interfaces with the middle element or base element (see 3a, 2b).
Regarding Claim 7, Orza teaches:
Wherein the hollow middle element protrusion comprises an internal protrusion threading (2b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orza ‘023 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lancaster, U.S. Patent 2,174,521.
All the aspects of the instant invention are disclosed above but for:
The hollow washer elements comprises an internal washer element threading.
Lancaster teaches a similar device wherein:
A hollow washer element comprises an internal washer element threading.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Orza with internal threading on the washer element because that would permit the use of threaded fasteners in addition to rivets which would provide options for attaching the device permanently (rivets) or detachably (threads) for different applications.
Claim(s) 11-14, 16 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilcox ‘019 as applied to claims 1-10 above, and further in view of Nussbaum, U.S. Patent 10,595,581.
Regarding Claims 11-14, 16 and 19-20, the prior art of Wilcox is silent regarding these limitations.
Regarding Claim 11, Nussbaum teaches:
wherein the apparatus further comprises a battery (see element 368)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Wilcox with the battery of Nussbaum because that permit the use embedded “smart” technologies in the device.
Regarding Claim 12, Nussbaum teaches:
wherein the apparatus further comprises a computing element (see element 364).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Wilcox with the computing element of Nussbaum because that permit the use embedded “smart” technologies in the device for various types of desirable user metrics.
Regarding Claim 13, Nussbaum teaches:
wherein the computing element comprises a component that can remotely interact with a remote computational device (see element 362).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Wilcox with the transmitter of Nussbaum because that permit the use embedded “smart” technologies in the device for various types of desirable user metrics which could then be communicated to a smartphone for further analysis.
Regarding Claim 14, Nussbaum teaches:
wherein the computing element comprises a printed circuit board (PCB) (see Col 18, Lns 3-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Wilcox with the PCB of Nussbaum because PCBs are notoriously well understood computer architectures for embedded technologies and would be an economical choice such an application.
Regarding Claim 16, Nussbaum teaches:
wherein the base element is physically connected to a pedometer (see Col 18, Lns 3-15)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Wilcox with the pedometer of Nussbaum because the pedometer would be appropriately placed on the footwear as taught by both prior arts.
Regarding Claims 19-20, Nussbaum teaches:
wherein the front element comprises an imaging device (see Col 20, Lns 40-53).
wherein the imaging device comprises a camera (see Col 20, Lns 40-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Wilcox with the camera/imaging device of Nussbaum because that would permit the taking of digital images which can be used for health analysis or simply entertainment.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilcox ‘019 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hsu, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0085296.
Regarding Claim 15, Wilcox is silent with regard to the use of a near-field communication (NFC) module.
Hsu teaches a garment button with a near-field communication device (see figs. 1-2, see element 23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Wilcox with a near-field communication (NFC) device because that would permit easy data transfer between the garment apparatus and a smartphone.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilcox ‘019 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Santiago, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0307432.
Wilcox is silent with regard the apparatus having a blood oxygen sensor or an infrared sensor.
Santiago teaches a garment with both a blood oxygen sensor (see paragraph [0010]) and an infrared sensor (see paragraph [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Wilcox with the features of Santiago because the blood oxygen sensor and infrared sensor would permit biometric data monitoring which would give a user access to detailed health analytics.
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 MATTHEW J SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5218. The examiner can normally be reached IFP, Typically M-Th, 8:00-6:00, regular Fr availability.
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, Jason San can be reached at 571-272-6531. 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.
/M.J.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677