DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “matching profile” of the of the token comprising “corresponding protrusions and recessions or a set of jagged edges” (claims 18-19), “first set of overlapping grooves/second set of overlapping grooves” (claims 21-22), for example, and further unshown structures details (claims 23-31) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-10 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse of Group II, Figures 7-9, in the telephone discussion on 10/09/25.
The species are were as follows:
Group I: Figures 1-6
Group II: Figures 7-9
Group III: Figures 10-13
Applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single species to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. The reply must also identify the claims readable on the elected species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered non-responsive unless accompanied by an election.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which are written in dependent form or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowed generic claim. Currently, the following claim(s) are generic: No claims.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Group I, II, and III, lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a generic token for attaching to a hat, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Fenner (US 2008/0072466) and/or Blanks (US 6,651,368).
Each group contains a significantly different structure which constitutes the special technical feature: Group I is drawn the special technical feature of a long magnet bar with a circular center; Group II is drawn to the special technical feature of a non-magnetic couplable rim which encases the token; and Group III is drawn to the special technical feature of a protruding circular magnet.
Each Group requires a separate search strategy due to significantly different structural features which are non-obvious modifications.
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 11-19 and 21-31 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.
In respect to independent claims 11 and 25, the claim recites “a rim interface configured to receive a token” and “a retaining fastener configured to sustain the token in the aperture”, claiming a functional or intended use of the rim interface and retaining fastener, and then further recites “the retaining fastener having an opening through which the token is visible” which infers that the token is positively recited by the claim, which it is not. It is unclear whether the claimed system is merely functionally capable of retaining a token or if a token is a claimed structural element of the system.
Any further dependent claims which recite limitations drawn to the token, or limitations drawn to another element directly related to the token (e.g. interlocking or “matching profiles”) is indefinite since a token is not positively recited in the claim.
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.
Claims 11-19 and 21-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fenner (US 2008/0072466).
In respect to claim 11, although unclear for the reasons detailed above, Fenner discloses a system comprising: an embedded housing interface 82 having a rim interface 84 configured to receive a token 21 in an aperture formed on a front side of the embedded housing interface, the rim interface 84 configured to be covered by, and selectively couple to, a retaining fastener 80 (Fig. 5); the retaining fastener 80 having an opening on the front side and capable of sustaining the token in the aperture (and allowing it to be removed) (0049); at least one clothing item (e.g. a hat) coupled to the embedded housing interface 82 (Fig. 1).
In respect to claim 12, Fenner discloses that the housing rim is configured to partially overlap the token against the embedded housing interface (Fig. 5).
In respect to claim 13, Fenner discloses both a coupled and decoupled state of the embedded housing interface (0049).
In respect to claims 14 and 15, Fenner discloses embedded housing interface which is capable of retaining a token flush with its front side and an inner edge. Furthermore, Fenner appear to explicitly disclose the token having these properties. The embedded housing interface is capable of retaining a token with the structural properties (wireless transmitter).
In respect to claim 16, Fenner discloses that both the retaining fastener 80 and rim interface 84 are circular (Fig. 5).
In respect to claims 17 and 21-24 Fenner discloses that the housing rim and rim interface may have recession and sets of protrusions alternately “overlapping grooves” (Figs 7-8). Although Fenner does not disclose rotating to interlock, this is not a structural distinction but a functionality, which Fenner is capable of e.g. the first and second set of overlapping grooves may be rotated while pressing into engagement.
In respect to claims 18-19, Fenner discloses that the token may tightly fit into an edge profile of embedded housing interface “matching profile” (0047-0048; Figs 2-4). The claims are indefinite since they depend from structural details of the token which is currently a configured use and not an element of the system, as claimed.
In respect to claims 25-31, Fenner discloses the claimed invention for the reasons detailed 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, 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 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.
Claims 18 and 19 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fenner (US 2008/0072466) in view of Blanks (US 6,651,368).
Fenner discloses the claims as detailed above, however, Blanks further teach a similar system for attachment to an article of clothing (hat) wherein a similar embedded housing interface 10 selectively engages with a token 6 (Figs. 1 & 6-8); the edge profile of the token and the embedded housing interface having matching profiles, with recessions in the embedded housing interface corresponding with protrusions (Figs. 3-5). It would have been obvious to modify the matching profiles of the token and embedded housing interface taught in Fenner to be elliptical and thus having a set of matching protrusions/recessions in view of Blanks to comfortably slidably receive a token for tight detainment (Col. 3, 46-49). It is noted that although a rotation of the token is not disclosed, if it configured to be inserted via rotation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shwartz et al. (US 2004/0079011) and Lee (US 6,154,992).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE ROBERT GRABOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3518. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm.
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, Daniel Troy, can be reached at 571-270-3742. 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.
/KYLE R GRABOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637