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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to claims 1-11 filed 01 November 2024, which are pending in this application.
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 “the airbag vest does not comprise a cable intended to be connected to the horse and to trigger the inflation of the sheath” of claim 9 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 Objections
Claim(s) 7 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7, lines 2-3, should recite, “configured to activate the motion sensor only when the motion sensor is installed on the horse”.
Claim 11, lines 2-3, should recite, “wherein the motion sensor is fastened at [[the]] a rear of the saddle, in particular at [[the]] a level of [[the]] a cantle of said saddle.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means,” and are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“automatic activation means” in claim 7
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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(s) 1-3, 6, and 8-9 (and claims 4-5, 7, and 10-11 at least for depending from a rejected claim) is/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.
Independent Claim 1 is/are indefinite as it/they recite(s) “a system for protecting a rider on a horse likely to of falling on him/her” in the preamble. It is unclear if the horse is required by the claim or not. Further, it is unclear if the “him/her” is the rider or the horse. Further, it is unclear if the horse is going to fall on the rider or fall on itself. Further, it is unclear if the horse is going to fall at all and if this falling is required by the claim. Therein the metes and bounds of the claim are indefinite. For examination purposes, the claim is being interpreted as, “a system for protecting a rider on a horse
Independent Claim 1 is/are indefinite as it/they recite(s) “an airbag vest to be worn by the rider, said vest having at least one inflatable sheath, a gas generator, a gas cartridge and an electronic unit connected to the gas generator and allowing triggering the inflation of the sheath, characterised in that it comprises a motion sensor intended to be installed on the horse and configured to detect a fall thereof by detecting an overpass of a limit angle which corresponds to an abnormal orientation of the horse, and in that said motion sensor is connected to the electronic unit so as to trigger the inflation of the sheath in case of detection of a fall of the horse”. It is unclear what structure is allowing for the triggering of the inflation. Further, it is unclear if “the sheath” is the same structure as the “at least one inflatable sheath”. Further, it is unclear what structure is described by the limitation “characterised in that it”. Further, it is unclear if the limitation “intended” is positive or not. Further, it is unclear if “thereof” is referencing the motion sensor, the airbag vest, or the horse. Further, it is unclear what structures or functions “in that” is meant to reference. Therein the metes and bounds of the claim are indefinite. For examination purposes, the claim is being interpreted as, “an airbag vest to be worn by the rider, said vest having at least one inflatable sheath, a gas generator, a gas cartridge, and an electronic unit connected to the gas generator, and the electric unit configured for allowing a triggering of [[the]] inflation of the at least one inflatable sheath[[,]]; the airbag vest further comprising a motion sensor configured to be installed on the horse and configured to detect a fall of the horse by detecting an overpass of a limit angle which corresponds to an abnormal orientation of the horse, and electronic unit so as to trigger the inflation of the at least one inflatable sheath when the fall of the horse has been detected”.
Claim 2 is/are indefinite as it/they recite(s) “wherein the motion sensor is configured to detect a fall of the horse by measuring an angular position of said horse according to at least one axis”. It is unclear if “a fall” is a new fall or the same fall from claim 1. Further, it is unclear if the “angular position” is the same as the “limit angle” from claim 1, or a new/different limitation. Further, it is unclear if the “at least one axis” is part of or different from the “limit angle” of claim 1. Therein the metes and bounds of the claim are indefinite. For examination purposes, the claim is being interpreted as, “wherein the motion sensor is configured to detect [[a]] the fall of the horse by detecting the overpass of the limit angle, the limit angle being a measuring of an angular position of said horse according to at least one axis”.
Claim 3 is/are indefinite as it/they recite(s) “wherein the motion sensor is configured to detect a fall of the horse when the value of an angle of lateral or longitudinal inclination is larger than a predetermined limit value”. It is unclear if “a fall” is a new fall or the same fall from claims 1 and 2. Further, it is unclear if the “an angle” is the same as the “limit angle” of claim 1 and/or the “angular position” of claim 2, a combination of both the “limit angle” and the “angular position”, or different than both the “limit angle” and the “angular position”. Therein the metes and bounds of the claim are indefinite. For examination purposes, the claim is being interpreted as, “wherein the motion sensor is configured to detect [[a]] the fall of the horse[[a]] the fall of the horse by detecting the overpass of the limit angle which measures the angular position of the horse according to the at least one axis, and the angular position is measured when the value of an angle of lateral or longitudinal inclination is larger than a predetermined limit value”.
Claim 6 is/are indefinite as it/they recite(s) “said cable triggering the inflation of the sheath as it detaches from the vest”. It is unclear if “it” is referring to the cable or the sheath. Therein the metes and bounds of the claim are indefinite. For examination purposes, the claim is being interpreted as, “said cable triggering the inflation of the sheath as [[it]] the cable detaches from the vest”.
Claim 8 is/are indefinite as it/they recite(s) “characterised in that it further comprises a motion sensor installed on the airbag vest while being connected to the electronic unit and configured to detect a fall of the rider”. It is unclear what structure is being characterised. Further, it is unclear what structure “it” is referring to since there is no structure recited before the word “characterised” nor after “characterised” and before “it”. Further, it is unclear the “motion sensor” is new/different or the same motion sensor previously recited in claim 1. Therein the metes and bounds of the claim are indefinite. For examination purposes, the claim is being interpreted as, “the protection system characterised in that [[it]] the protection system further comprises [[a]] an additional motion sensor installed on the airbag vest while being connected to the electronic unit, and the additional motion sensor configured to detect a fall of the rider”.
Claim 9 is/are indefinite as it/they recite(s) “wherein the airbag vest does not comprise a cable intended to be connected to the horse and to trigger the inflation of the sheath”. it is unclear if “the sheath” is the same structure as the “at least one inflatable sheath”. Further, it is unclear if the limitation “intended” is positive or not. Therein the metes and bounds of the claim are indefinite. For examination purposes, the claim is being interpreted as, “wherein the airbag vest does not comprise a cable configured to be connected to the horse and to trigger the inflation of the at least one inflatable sheath”.
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) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carmeli US 20090055053.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Carmeli discloses a system (Figs. 1-6B #10/20/40) for protecting a rider (Abstract) on a horse likely to of falling on him/her (Abstact notes, “an airbag equipped garment worn by a rider of a vehicle”; the vehicle could reasonably be a horse), comprising an airbag vest (Figs. 1-2 #10) to be worn by the rider (¶0018), said vest having at least one inflatable sheath (Figs. 1-2 #12/12a-b/14a-f), a gas generator (¶0020), a gas cartridge (Figs. 1-2 #15a-f) and an electronic unit (Fig. 2 #20) connected to the gas generator (¶0021-0022) and allowing triggering the inflation of the sheath (¶0020-0021), characterised in that it comprises a motion sensor (Fig. 4 #41/42/43/44) intended to be installed on the horse (¶0031 notes the sensors are installed on the motorcycle which could be substituted for a horse) and configured to detect a fall thereof (¶0031, 0037) by detecting an overpass of a limit angle (¶0032-0046) which corresponds to an abnormal orientation of the horse (¶0032-0046), and in that said motion sensor is connected to the electronic unit so as to trigger the inflation of the sheath in case of detection of a fall of the horse (¶0032-0046).
Regarding Claim 2, Carmeli discloses the protection system according to claim 1, wherein the motion sensor is configured to detect a fall of the horse by measuring an angular position of said horse according to at least one axis (¶0032-0046).
Regarding Claim 3, Carmeli discloses the protection system according to claim 2, wherein the motion sensor is configured to detect a fall of the horse when the value of an angle of lateral or longitudinal inclination is larger than a predetermined limit value (¶0032-0046).
Regarding Claim 4, Carmeli discloses the protection system according to claim 1, wherein the motion sensor comprises a gyrometer (¶0050) and an accelerometer (¶0050).
Regarding Claim 5, Carmeli discloses the protection system according to claim 1, wherein the motion sensor is connected to the electronic unit via a radio-frequency wireless link (¶0023).
Regarding Claim 6, Carmeli discloses the protection system according to claim 1, wherein the airbag vest further comprises a cable intended to be detachably connected to the horse (¶0006), said cable triggering the inflation of the sheath as it detaches from the vest (¶0006).
Regarding Claim 7, Carmeli discloses the protection system according to claim 1, further comprising automatic activation means configured to activate the motion sensor only when the latter is installed on the horse (¶0032-0046).
Regarding Claim 8, Carmeli discloses the protection system according to claim 1, characterised in that it further comprises a motion sensor (Fig. 2 #22/24) installed on the airbag vest while being connected to the electronic unit (¶0032-0046) and configured to detect a fall of the rider (¶0032-0046).
Regarding Claim 9, Carmeli discloses the protection system according to claim 8, wherein the airbag vest does not comprise a cable intended to be connected to the horse and to trigger the inflation of the sheath (¶0062).
Regarding Claim 10, Carmeli discloses the protection system according to claim 1, further comprising a saddle on which the motion sensor is installed (Fig. 4 #41/44; ¶0032-0046, 0062).
Regarding Claim 11, Carmeli discloses the protection system according to claim 10, wherein the motion sensor is fastened at the rear of the saddle (Fig. 4 #44), in particular at the level of the cantle of said saddle (Fig. 4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Davenport US 20170208874 teaches an inflatable vest
Osuchowski US 3930667 teaches a motorcycle inflatable vest
Kincheloe US 4685151 teaches a motorcycle safety apparel
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAQUEL M. WEIS whose telephone number is 571-272-6804. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 0800-1700.
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, ALISSA J. TOMPKINS can be reached on 571-272-3425. 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.
/RAQUEL M. WEIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/HEATHER MANGINE, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights