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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 1 and Species A in the reply filed on 9/1/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Groups 1 and 2 both require the limitations of claim 1, so they have unity of invention. This is not found persuasive because, as described in the restriction requirement, although Groups 1 and 2 share the technical feature of claim 1, this is not a special technical feature because it does not make a contribution over the prior art, therefore the groups lack unity of invention. Applicant also traverses the species election on the grounds that claims 1-12 all require the limitations of claim 1, which is generic to species A and B, so the species should be examined together. This is not found persuasive because the species as described in the restriction requirement have mutually exclusive features and moreover, as described in the restriction requirement, the limitations of claim 1 are not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Upon further review, claim 12 has been found to belong to Group 1 and will be examined on the merits with Group 1.
Claims 4-8, 10, 13-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1-3 and 12 are presented for examination on the merits.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains phrases which can be implied (“The invention provides”) and legal phraseology often used in patent claims (“comprising”, “comprise”). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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(s) 1-3, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grimm (US 5309570).
Regarding claim 1, Grimm discloses: A strapping system for a protective sports garment having an outer layer (12) and an inner layer (11), the strapping system comprising a strap (23) for encircling a portion of the body of the user and securing the garment thereto (“to attach the knee pad to the user’s knee, the knee pad is simply placed on the user and the strap ends 23a and 23b are positioned around the back of the user’s knee” column 5, lines 28-31), said strap being located at least partially under said outer layer (“the strap is positioned between the top member 12 and the base member 11” column 5, lines 9-10; see figure 1), said strap further comprising a first end portion permanently affixed to the garment (“the strap is positioned between the top member 12 and the base member 11” column 5, lines 9-10; “the three members 11, 12, and 33 are secured in position […] suitable fastening means may be used such as glue, sonic welding or sewing” column 4, lines 22-27; since the strap is between the members 11 and 12, which are secured together, the strap is also permanently affixed where it is sandwiched between layers 11 and 12, and the first end portion includes an area that is sandwiched between the layers as shown in the annotated figure 1 below) and a second end portion configured to be releasably coupled to the garment or to said strap itself (“the second end 23b is fastened to the first end 23a by simply slipping the side member 24a through the loop 28” column 5, lines 32-34), said strap forming a circumferential connection (“to attach the knee pad to the user’s knee, the knee pad is simply placed on the user and the strap ends 23a and 23b are positioned around the back of the user’s knee, and fastened off to the side of the leg” column 5, lines 28-32).
PNG
media_image1.png
529
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Grimm discloses: The strapping system of claim 1, wherein said strap is partially located within a channel under said outer layer (“the first end 23a is inserted through a slit 80 in the base member 11” column 5, lines 10-11; the slit 80 being in the base member 11 is considered to be “under” the outer layer (12, which is described as a “top member” indicating that it is intended to be positioned on top of base member 11, which would mean the base member 11 and the slit 80 are positioned under the top member 12) insofar as defined by the claim. Examiner also notes that the term “under” is also a relative term that depends on the orientation of the garment in space, and there is an orientation of the pad in which the base member 11 is “under” the top member 12).
Regarding claim 3, Grimm discloses: The strapping system of claim 1, wherein said strap is made at least in part from a flexible material (the strap is flexible enough to be manipulated around the buckle and around the leg of the user, see column 5, lines 24-32, so it is understood to be made from a flexible material insofar as defined by the claim).
Regarding claim 12, Grimm discloses: The strapping system of claim 1, wherein the user is an ice hockey player, ball hockey player, field hockey player, lacrosse player, baseball player, cricket player, soccer player, or football player (Examiner notes that this limitation does not further define the structure of the claimed apparatus and is merely drawn to describing the user of the apparatus, and therefore it is an intended use limitation. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). See MPEP 2114(II). As Grimm has all of the claimed structural limitations, it reads on the claim as written. The pad of Grimm is fully capable of use by any of the recited sports players).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Erlandson (US 4373213) and Karakoc (US 2024/0277086) teach relevant protective garments with straps.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIANNA T DUCKWORTH whose telephone number is (571)272-1458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Clinton Ostrup can be reached at 571-272-5559. 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.
/BRIANNA T. DUCKWORTH/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/PATRICK J. LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
