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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 72. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "72" and "64" have both been used to designate the grith straps within the specification. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference characters not mentioned in the description: 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 20, 60, & 70. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated based on the information in the specification. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
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 stiffening ribs 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.
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.
Claim 1-17 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 recites the claim limitation of “a material which will not substantially flex or deform under pressures exerted by the girth straps when tightened” which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such, the intended stiffness to prevent flex/deformation and subsequently the claim have been rendered indefinite. Claims 2-17 fail to remedy such deficiency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a horse" in the final line of the claim which is a limitation that was previously introduced in line 2 of the claim and is repeatedly referenced as “the horse”. This creates a clarity issue; is the same feature or discrete of that similar feature recited earlier in the claim(s). Claims 2-17 fail to remedy such deficiency.
Claim 5 recites term “about” which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such, the claim term of “about 5mm” and subsequently the claim have been rendered indefinite. Furthermore, the claim contains a range within a range, which is also indefinite.
Claim 7 recites term “about” which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such, the claim term of “about 10mm” and subsequently the claim have been rendered indefinite. Furthermore, the claim contains a range within a range, which is also indefinite.
Claim 8 recites term “similarly-preforming material” which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “similarly-preforming material” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such, the claim term of “a similarly-preforming material” and subsequently the claim have been rendered indefinite. Claim 9 fails to remedy such deficiency.
Claim 13 recites term “about” which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such, the claim term of “about 25mm” and subsequently the claim have been rendered indefinite. Furthermore, the claim contains a range within a range, which is also indefinite.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
Claim 14 recites term “similarly-preforming material” which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “similarly-preforming material” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such, the claim term of “a similarly-preforming material” and subsequently the claim have been rendered indefinite. Claim 15 fails to remedy such deficiency.
Claim 16 recites the broad recitation of “9 to 25 kPa”, and the claim also recites “11 to 24 kPa” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Furthermore, the claim contains a range within a range, which is also indefinite.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. This claim is an omnibus type claim, this limitation can and should be described in plane language utilizing the anatomy of the animal, not by broadly referencing the disclosure.
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)(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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-8, 10-11, & 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Marshall, U.S. Patent No. 5,816,031 A; herein Marsh.
Re claim 1, as best understood, Marsh discloses a girth for a horse, the girth comprising girth straps (42/44; the strips/nylon webbing, fig. 8-9 & 15-16) and a sternum plate (10; the saddle cinch, fig. 2-16) spacing and bridging the girth straps such that, in use on a horse, the girth straps are prevented by the sternum plate from contacting the horse in the region of the ascending pectoral and rectus abdominus muscles of the horse (fig. 2, the support rib of the cinch contacts the underbelly/surface of the horse not the surface of the straps), wherein the sternum plate comprises a girth plate (12; the rib support member, fig. 5 & 9-16) formed of a material which will not substantially flex or deform under pressures exerted by the girth straps when tightened, in use, on the horse (abstract, col 3; 50-59, and col 4; 27-33, the stiff support rib acts to form a substantially rigid contour to fit a horses girth and resist yielding/hold its shape).
Re claim 3, as best understood, Marsh discloses the invention of claim 1, Marsh further discloses wherein the sternum plate further comprises a sternum pad (14; the foam rubber, fig. 9 & 15-16), wherein the sternum pad is positioned proximal to the horse, in use (fig. 9 & 15-16, the rubber foam is proximal to the horse when in position as shown in fig. 2).
Re claim 4, as best understood, Marsh discloses the invention of claim 1, Marsh further discloses wherein the girth plate is formed of a polymeric material (abstract and col 3; 50-56, wherein a stiff polymer is utilized).
Re claim 7, as best understood, Marsh discloses the invention of claim 1, Marsh further discloses wherein the sternum plate further comprises a proximal layer of foam padding (14; the foam rubber, fig. 9 & 15-16).
Re claim 8, as best understood, Marsh discloses the invention of claim 1, Marsh further discloses wherein the sternum plate includes an upper cover and a lower cover (16; the outer covering, fig. 3-6, 8-9, & 15-16), optionally wherein the upper and lower covers are formed of leather (col 3; 64-66, wherein the outer cover is leather).
Re claim 10, as best understood, Marsh discloses the invention of claim 1, Marsh further discloses wherein an upper surface of the sternum plate includes keepers to position the girth straps to prevent longitudinal movement with respect to the sternum plate (fig. 3-4 & 6-7 and col 5; 18-21, the stiches will prevent the straps from disengaging with the rest of the cinch).
Re claim 11, as best understood, Marsh discloses the invention of claim 3, Marsh further discloses wherein the sternum pad is formed of a foamed polymeric material (col 3; 59-61, the foam rubber/neoprene).
Re claim 13, as best understood, Marsh discloses the invention of claim 11, Marsh further discloses wherein the foam has a thickness of from 15mm to 40mm (col 4; 59-61, the strip of rubber foam is ¾ of an inch which is equivalent to ~19mm).
Re claim 14, as best understood, Marsh discloses the invention of claim 3, Marsh further discloses wherein the sternum pad further comprises an upper cover and a lower cover (16; the outer covering, fig. 3-6, 8-9, & 15-16), wherein the upper and lower covers are formed of leather (col 3; 64-66, wherein the outer cover is leather).
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.
Claims 2 & 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsh as applied to claim 1 above.
Re claim 2, as best understood, Marsh discloses the invention of claim 1, Marsh discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the girth plate explicitly does not deflect or deform when a force of about 20Nm is applied to the girth straps perpendicular to a surface of the girth plate. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to have the girth plate deflect a force that can be applied by a person during installation, since it has been held that that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable supports a case of obviousness when the general conditions of the claim are met by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 II. A.
Re claim 6, as best understood, Marsh discloses the invention of claim 1, Marsh further discloses wherein the girth plate includes a stiffening rib (12; the rib support member, fig. 5 & 9-16).
Marsh discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the girth plate includes stiffening ribs. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to utilize a plurality of ribs to reinforce the structure of the cinch, since it has been held that a mere duplication of essential working parts is generally held as an obvious modification. See MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsh as applied to claim 4 above.
Re claim 5, as best understood, Marsh discloses the invention of claim 4, Marsh discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the girth plate is formed of polypropylene having a thickness of from 3mm to 8mm, from 4mm to 6mm or 5mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to utilize polypropylene as the stiff polymer having a thickness of 3-8mm in order to sufficiently resist yielding with movement of the horse while allowing the horse to move, since it has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination and discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable supports a case of obviousness when the general conditions of the claim are met by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.07 & 2144.05 II. A.
Claim 12 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsh as applied to claim 11 above.
Re claim 12, as best understood, Marsh discloses the invention of claim 11, Marsh discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the foam has a net density of 80-150 kg/m3, or 100-120 kg/m3. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to utilize a foam with a net density of 80-150 kg/m3 to provide the mechanical properties of mechanical durability, structural stability, and energy absorption, since it has been held that that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable supports a case of obviousness when the general conditions of the claim are met by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 II. A.
Re claim 16, as best understood, Marsh discloses the invention of claim 11, Marsh discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the foam has a compression resistance of 9 to 25 kPa. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to have such a compression resistance to provide both cushioning and firm support, since it has been held that that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable supports a case of obviousness when the general conditions of the claim are met by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 II. A.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsh as applied to claim 8 above, in view of Chang, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0184678 A1.
Re claim 9, as best understood, Marsh discloses the invention of claim 8, Marsh fails to disclose wherein at least one of the upper and/or lower covers includes perforations to permit air flow between the inside and outside of the sternum plate. However, Change discloses wherein an upper cover (para 18, the inner surface of the belt; 10) includes perforations (21 & 24; the vent holes and indentations, fig. 1-2) to permit air flow between the inside and outside (para 19-21, the ventilation pad acts to promote air flow and heat dissipation as the horse moves) of a sternum plate (20; the ventilation pad, fig. 1-2).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein at least one of the upper and/or lower covers includes perforations to permit air flow between the inside and outside of the sternum plate however, Chang discloses such a technique. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art elements of the ventilation pad taught by Chang to the upper cover of the prior art to yield the predictable result of ventilating and allowing the heat to dissipate from the horse where the girth/cinch is located. See MPEP 2143 I. (A).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsh as applied to claim 14 above, in view of Chang, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0184678 A1.
Re claim 15, as best understood, Marsh discloses the invention of claim 14, Marsh fails to disclose wherein at least one of the upper and/or lower covers includes perforations to permit air flow between the inside and outside of the sternum plate. However, Change discloses wherein an upper cover (para 18, the inner surface of the belt; 10) includes perforations (21 & 24; the vent holes and indentations, fig. 1-2) to permit air flow between the inside and outside (para 19-21, the ventilation pad acts to promote air flow and heat dissipation as the horse moves) of a sternum plate (20; the ventilation pad, fig. 1-2).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein at least one of the upper and/or lower covers includes perforations to permit air flow between the inside and outside of the sternum plate however, Chang discloses such a technique. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art elements of the ventilation pad taught by Chang to the upper cover of the prior art to yield the predictable result of ventilating and allowing the heat to dissipate from the horse where the girth/cinch is located. See MPEP 2143 I. (A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0001855 A1 which discloses a riding girth with a plurality of perforations. French Patent No. FR 3018515 A1 which discloses a large pad contacting the horse with a stiffening section. UK Patent Application No. GB 2166035 A which discloses keepers for the girth straps and a sternum plate. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0181206 A1 which discloses a foam-based material for horse protective gear allowing ventilation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE P MACCRATE whose telephone number is (571)272-5215. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 9am-5pm EST.
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, Joshua J Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. 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.
/NICOLE PAIGE MACCRATE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642