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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 22 is withdrawn for being directed towards non-elected figure 2 as described in applicant’s paragraph 0127-0128.
Claim 25 is withdrawn for being directed towards non-elected species/figures as described in applicant’s disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 24, Applicant’s disclosure does not show/describe the distal connecting member including the distal shield.
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.
Claims 4-5, 9, 12, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 4 is indefinite with regards to depending from claim 2 which recites the contact surface material including the paddings, etc.
Claim 5 is generally indefinite. Applicant’s elected figures 4 and 7-9 do not describe/show a dorsal section covering/positioned in an open space of a palmer section, etc.
Claims 9 and 12 are indefinite for not describing “or” between the options, etc.
Claim 21 is generally indefinite depending from claim 18 and being generally unclear as to what element in the disclosure and figures the claims pertain to.
Claim 23 is indefinite because the differentiation between the contact surface material and the paddings is unclear.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 17-18, 21, and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1&2) as being anticipated by Hoyt US 4470411.
Regarding claim 1, Hoyt discloses an equine protective boot comprising:
a palmar cage configured for positioning on a palmar side of an extremity (figure 1),
the palmar cage defining a plurality of struts spaced apart by palmar openings for facilitating airflow and having each of a proximal end and a distal end (see annotated figure 2 below where the lines represent “strut portions” spaced apart by openings 44a/b, where the highlighted “strut portions” meet the metes and bounds of the “struts” represented in the elected figures 4 and 7-9),
the plurality of struts forming at least a lateral protection region, a palmar protection region, and a medial protection region on the extremity (figure 1);
a proximal connecting member coupling proximal ends of the plurality of struts (near 20 in figure 2);
a distal connecting member coupling distal ends of the plurality of struts (near 14 in figure 2);
a proximal fastener configured for securing the protective boot to the extremity (18 figure 1);
a distal fastener configured for securing the protective boot to the extremity (18a figure 1);
a contact surface material disposed at least partially on an inner surface of the palmar cage and along the plurality of struts (such as the material of the inner surface shown in figures 3-6);
a proximal local padding disposed on the inner surface of the palmar cage proximal of the palmar openings and near the proximal end (22 figure 3); and
a distal local padding disposed on the inner surface of the palmar cage distal of the palmar openings and near the distal end (24 figure 3);
wherein the protective boot is configured to define a gap between the plurality of struts and the extremity when the protective boot is fastened to the extremity (by way of the padding best shown in figures 4-5).
PNG
media_image1.png
398
418
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Hoyt discloses the equine protective boot of claim 1, wherein the contact surface material includes the proximal local padding and the distal local padding (as previously described where figures 4-5 show the paddings also being contact surface materials), wherein the contact surface material comprises at least one of: impact resistant performance foams, natural or synthetic rubber, viscoelastic polymers, elastic polymers such as ethylene vinyl acetate, closed cell materials, polyurethanes, thermoplastic polyurethanes, silicon, non-Newtonian shear thickening type fluids, and combinations thereof (column 3 lines 67-68 describes the cushion layer 22 comprised of polyvinyl chloride foam).
Regarding claim 3, Hoyt discloses the equine protective boot of claim 2, wherein the palmar cage forms a hard shell attached to the contact surface material (column 3 lines 65-66 describe the outer layer 20 formed of plastic sheet material).
Regarding claim 4, Hoyt discloses the equine protective boot of claim 2, wherein the contact surface material defines openings corresponding to the palmar openings and is spaced apart from the extremity by the proximal local padding and the distal local padding to allow airflow between the extremity and the contact surface material (as previously described when the contact surface material is the inner surface of the struts).
Regarding claim 5, Hoyt discloses the equine protective boot of claim 1, wherein the plurality of struts forming the palmar protection region define a palmar section, wherein the equine protective boot further comprises a dorsal section, wherein the palmar section defines an open space from the proximal end to the distal end of the plurality of struts, and the dorsal section is configured to at least partly cover or be positioned in the open space (figure 1, as best understood by the Examiner).
Regarding claim 17, Hoyt discloses the equine protective boot of claim 1, wherein the proximal local padding and the distal local padding are configured to press against the extremity when worn (as described) and thereby create a space between a portion of the equine protective boot therebetween to allow airflow (figure 3 shows groove space 26 in a portion between the proximal and distal sections of the paddings).
Regarding claim 18, Hoyt discloses the equine protective boot of claim 1, further comprising an additional component layer configured to reduce ingress of dirt or dust, provide brush protection, cushioning, impact dissipation, impact absorption impact, moisture wicking, or temperature modulation (34),
the additional component layer configured to permit airflow therethrough and limit debris passing therethrough (figures 2 and 6).
Regarding claim 21, Hoyt discloses the equine protective boot of claim 18, wherein the additional component layer is attached to at least a portion of an outer surface of the palmar cage or the inner surface of the palmar cage and covers the palmar openings to decrease likelihood of abrasion by sticks, brush, or other objects and/or to reduce accumulation of dirt, sand, or other debris within the protective boot while still facilitating air flow and allowing water to drain out (as previously described and covering at least some of the openings, as best understood by the Examiner).
Regarding claim 23, Hoyt discloses the equine protective boot of claim 1, wherein the contact surface material protrudes into an interior of the palmar cage further than a remainder of the equine protective boot, thereby defining the gap (see previous rejections, as best understood by the Examiner).
Regarding claim 24, Hoyt discloses the equine protective boot of claim 1, wherein the distal connecting member includes a distal shield that is configured to extend over a fetlock region of the extremity, and wherein the contact surface material is provided anywhere on the inside of the palmar cage (figure 1).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 9, 12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoyt.
Regarding claim 9, Hoyt teaches the equine protective boot of claim 1, wherein the palmar cage defines a surface area (as shown), but does not specify and at least 20% of the surface area has an air permeability of at least: 530 liters/meters squared/second (1/m2/s) at a 100 pascal (Pa) pressure drop, 100 cm3/cm2/s at a 200 Pa pressure drop, 150 cm3/cm2/s at a 200 Pa pressure drop, 250 cm3/cm2/s at a 200 Pa pressure drop.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such a particular air permeability, in order to meet various requirements for various activities to be performed by the equine; since discovering an optimum value (of the perforations taught by Hoyt) of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, etc.
Regarding claim 12, Hoyt teaches the equine protective boot of claim 1, wherein the palmar cage defines a surface area, and at least 30% of the surface area has an air permeability of at least; 100 cm3/cm2/s at a 200 Pa pressure drop, 150 cm3/cm2/s at a 200 Pa pressure drop, or 250 cm3/cm2/s at a 200 Pa pressure drop (see claim 9 rejection).
Regarding claim 15, Hoyt teaches the equine protective boot of claim 1, wherein the palmar cage defines a surface area, and at least 20% of the surface area is open space defined by the palmar openings (see claim 9 rejection).
Claim(s) 16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoyt in view of Finlay US 0084813.
Regarding claim 16, Hoyt teaches the equine protective boot of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the proximal local padding is spaced apart from the distal local padding.
Finlay; however, does teach proximal and distal paddings spaced apart (a and a’). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such shape to the padding, in order to further avoid concussion to the ligaments, etc. as taught by Finlay.
Regarding claim 19, the references teach n equine protective boot comprising: a palmar cage configured for positioning on the palmar side of an extremity, the palmar cage defining a plurality of discrete struts interconnected by reinforcing members to define a plurality of openings therebetween for facilitating airflow and having each of a proximal end and a distal end; a proximal connecting member coupling proximal ends of the plurality of discrete struts; a distal connecting member coupling distal ends of the plurality of discrete struts; a proximal local padding disposed on an inner surface of the palmar cage near the proximal end; and a distal local padding disposed on the inner surface of the palmar cage near the distal end and spaced apart from the proximal local padding; wherein the protective boot is configured to define a gap between the plurality of discrete struts and the extremity when the protective boot is fastened to the extremity (see previous rejections).
Response to Arguments
Response to applicant’s arguments filed 2/10/26 can be found in the updated rejections above.
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 JESSICA WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-7889. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:00am to 4:30pm MST.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached at (571)272-6886. 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.
/JESSICA B WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights