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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract notes the history of the invention. As detailed above, the abstract should instead be directed to the technical disclosure of the patent and that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains.
Content of Specification
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION: See 37 CFR 1.72(a) and MPEP § 606. The title of the invention should be placed at the top of the first page of the specification unless the title is provided in an application data sheet. The title of the invention should be brief but technically accurate and descriptive, preferably from two to seven words. It may not contain more than 500 characters.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS: See 37 CFR 1.78 and MPEP § 211 et seq.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT: See MPEP § 310.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT. See 37 CFR 1.71(g).
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM: The specification is required to include an incorporation-by-reference of electronic documents that are to become part of the permanent United States Patent and Trademark Office records in the file of a patent application. See 37 CFR 1.77(b)(5) and MPEP § 608.05. See also the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System posted on the USPTO website (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2019LegalFrameworkPES.pdf) and MPEP § 502.05
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR. See 35 U.S.C. 102(b) and 37 CFR 1.77.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(c). The specification should set forth the Background of the Invention in two parts:
(1) Field of the Invention: A statement of the field of art to which the invention pertains. This statement may include a paraphrasing of the applicable U.S. patent classification definitions of the subject matter of the claimed invention. This item may also be titled “Technical Field.”
(2) Description of the Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98: A description of the related art known to the applicant and including, if applicable, references to specific related art and problems involved in the prior art which are solved by the applicant’s invention. This item may also be titled “Background Art.”
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(d). A brief summary or general statement of the invention as set forth in 37 CFR 1.73. The summary is separate and distinct from the abstract and is directed toward the invention rather than the disclosure as a whole. The summary may point out the advantages of the invention or how it solves problems previously existent in the prior art (and preferably indicated in the Background of the Invention). In chemical cases it should point out in general terms the utility of the invention. If possible, the nature and gist of the invention or the inventive concept should be set forth. Objects of the invention should be treated briefly and only to the extent that they contribute to an understanding of the invention.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S): See MPEP § 608.01(f). A reference to and brief description of the drawing(s) as set forth in 37 CFR 1.74.
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(g). A description of the preferred embodiment(s) of the invention as required in 37 CFR 1.71. The description should be as short and specific as is necessary to describe the invention adequately and accurately. Where elements or groups of elements, compounds, and processes, which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art, they should not be described in detail. However, where particularly complicated subject matter is involved or where the elements, compounds, or processes may not be commonly or widely known in the field, the specification should refer to another patent or readily available publication which adequately describes the subject matter.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i) - (p).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE: See 37 CFR 1.72 (b) and MPEP § 608.01(b). The abstract is a brief narrative of the disclosure as a whole, as concise as the disclosure permits, in a single paragraph preferably not exceeding 150 words, commencing on a separate sheet following the claims. In an international application which has entered the national stage (37 CFR 1.491(b)), the applicant need not submit an abstract commencing on a separate sheet if an abstract was published with the international application under PCT Article 21. The abstract that appears on the cover page of the pamphlet published by the International Bureau (IB) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is the abstract that will be used by the USPTO. See MPEP § 1893.03(e).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING: See 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825 and MPEP §§ 2421 - 2431. The requirement for a sequence listing applies to all sequences disclosed in a given application, whether the sequences are claimed or not. See MPEP § 2422.01.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: on page 1, lines 5 and 6, the language “would be he is constructing a with” is inapt. On page 1, lines 20 and 27, the reference to the pages of the Figures should be deleted.
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 1-4 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
It is noted that the submitted claims have been numbered as claims 1-4. In claims 1-4, the language “comprising;” should be replaced with “comprising:”.
Claims 1, 2, and 4 are indefinite in reciting a method or apparatus for the invention. The preamble, of the claims defines a tic-tac-dodgeball game, however, the bodies of the claims refer to a method of designing/construction of the apparel. It is noted that because the preambles of the claims recite “TIC-TAC-DODGEBALL”, the claims have been assumed to be apparatus claims.
In claim 1, the language “a TIC-TAC-DODGEBALL suit” is indefinite in setting forth any structural limitations for the apparel of the invention. The structure for the apparel is not clearly set forth in the claim. The claim does end with a period.
In claim 2, the language “all other wearable apparel” is indefinite in setting forth further apparel for the game. The language “the symbol” lacks a proper antecedent basis. The language “or a like symbol” is indefinite in setting forth additional symbols for the invention. The language “such as TIC-TAC-DODGEBALL symbol” is indefinite as it is not clear if the symbol is being positively recited in the claim. Note MPEP 2173.05(d). The language “TIC-TAC-DODGEBALL symbol” is indefinite in setting forth any structural limitations for the symbol. The language “the garment” lacks a proper antecedent basis. The claim does not end with a period.
In claim 3, the language “such as or similar to the TIC-TAC-DODGEBALL game” is indefinite as it is not clear if the game apparel is being positively recited in the claim. Note MPEP 2173.05(d). Also, the language “TIC-TAC-DODGEBALL game wearable apparel” is indefinite in setting forth any structural limitations for the apparel. The language “any or all wearable objects associated with said game” is indefinite as the claim does not positively set forth any wearable objects that are associated with the game.
In claim 4, the language “TIC-TAC-DODGEBALL is comprising as producing” is inapt. The language “TIC-TAC-DODGEBALL suits” is indefinite in setting forth any structural limitations for the suits. The language “any and all other methods” is indefinite in setting forth additional methods for the manufacturing of the suits. The language “the lights and other accessories” lacks a proper antecedent basis. The language “said product” lacks a proper antecedent basis. The language “or like or similar game apparel” is indefinite in setting forth additional apparel for the invention.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Almeda (US 2015/0096108). Regarding claim 2, Almeda discloses a garment system comprising wearable apparel (note Figure 5) with a symbol thereon. The symbol as shown in Figure 5 is a tic-tac-toe symbol and defines a like symbol as recited. The symbol as shown in Figure 5 is located on the torso of the apparel. Note paragraph [0078] stating that the symbol is permanently applied indicia and the playing pieces may be detachably applied to the apparel.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stewart (US 4,971,334). Regarding claim 3, Stewart discloses a game comprising an affixable and detachable ball (1) that is used in a game comprising wearable apparel (13). Note Figures 1 and 3 and column 4, lines 6-21 and 36-49. It is noted that the limitation that the ball “can be used with the said game” relates to the intended use of the ball. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Here, the ball of Stewart is capable of being used in the said game such as or similar to TIC-TAC-DODGEBALL and thus, meets the claim limitation.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang (US 2019/0030411). Regarding claim 4, insofar as this claim may be understood, Yang anticipates the structural limitations. Yang provides an item of game apparel (note Figure 3) comprising light emitting diodes (2). Note paragraph [0015]. The LEDs are intended to indicate a touch signal when the smart garment is hit by an object. The game apparel of Yang is inherently capable of being used in the game of dodgeball. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Here, the game apparel of Yang is capable of being used in the game of TIC-TAC-DODGEBALL and thus, meets the claim limitation.
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.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Almeda (US 2015/0096108) in view of Curry (US 2021/0022415). Regarding claim 1, insofar as this claim may be understood, Almeda substantially discloses the structural limitations. Almeda discloses an item of wearable game apparel (Figure 5) with a symbol thereon. The symbol as shown in Figure 5 is a tic-tac-toe symbol and thus, Almeda defines a design for game apparel. Note paragraph [0078] stating that the symbol is permanently applied indicia and the playing pieces may be detachably applied to the apparel. However, Almeda does not state that the apparel comprises a non-toxic, non-allergenic fabric as recited.
Curry reveals that it is known in the art of wearable garments to form the garment from a material that is non-toxic and non-allergenic in order to reduce or prevent the growth of bacteria, fungus, and other microbes on the materials and aid in reducing odor in the garment. Note paragraph [0029]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the apparel of Almeda from the material of Curry in order to produce a garment that is less likely to grow bacteria, fungus, and other microbes on the materials and also aid in reducing odor in the garment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN B WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-4416. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-3:30pm.
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, Melba Bumgarner can be reached at 571-272-4709. 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.
/STEVEN B WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711