Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/9/24 is noted. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the examiner is considering the information disclosure statement.
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.
3. Claims 1-20 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.
4. Claims 1, 19, and 20 all recite “the second portion is free of attachment to the first portion”. The plain meaning of this phrase is that there is no attachment whatsoever between the first and second portions. Applicant’s specification, however, seems clear that the second portion is only partially detached from the first portion to allow the second portion to pivot away from the first portion where the first and second portions are always attached at least by the pivot line between the two. As such, the actual scope of this limitation is unclear. For the purpose of examination, prior art showing partial detachment will be considered sufficient to satisfy this limitation as this seems in line with Applicant’s disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-6, 8-10, 15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zelka et al. (US 5,374,919 A).
Regarding claim 1, Zelka discloses a safety device comprising: a storage member (8) having a first portion (14), a second portion (16), and defining a first chamber, the second portion moveable between a first configuration (Figures 1 and 2) and a second configuration (see Figures 3-5), in the first configuration the second portion is releasably attached to the first portion (via zipper 21) such that the first portion and the second portion cooperatively define the chamber, in the second configuration the second portion is free of attachment to the first portion (see Figures 3-5); and a retention device (34/32/29/40) disposed within the chamber and having a retaining arm (an “arm” as so broadly claimed being interpretated as nothing more than an elongate object - see 34 or 40 in Figure 4).
Regarding claim 2, Zelka discloses the safety device of claim 1, wherein the second portion is pivotably attached to the storage member (see hinge in Figures 3-5).
Regarding claim 3, Zelka discloses the safety device of claim 1, further comprising a tool (mace 28 or alarm 36) releasably attached to the retention device; wherein the tool is selected from a group consisting of a container of mace, an alarm, a siren, a flashing light, and an alert member.
Regarding claim 4, Zelka discloses the safety device of claim 1, wherein the first portion (14) has a first side having a first attachment mechanism (one half of the zipper or half of the hook and loop - see col. 2 lines 34-38, col. 3 lines 33-43, and col. 4 lines 15-19) and the second portion has a second side having a second attachment mechanism (other half of the zipper or half of the hook and loop - see col. 2 lines 34-38, col. 3 lines 33-43, and col. 4 lines 15-19), the first attachment releasably attachable to the second attachment mechanism.
Regarding claim 5, Zelka discloses the safety device of claim 4, wherein the first attachment mechanism and the second attachment mechanism are hook and loop fasteners (see “hook and loop” in see col. 2 lines 34-38, col. 3 lines 33-43, and col. 4 lines 15-19).
Regarding claim 6, Zelka discloses the safety device of claim 1, further comprising a tab (44) attached to the second portion.
Regarding claim 8, Zelka discloses the safety device of claim 1, further comprising a container of mace (28) releasably attached to the retention device.
Regarding claim 9, Zelka discloses the safety device of claim 1, further comprising a first alert member (36) releasably attached to the retention device.
Regarding claim 10, Zelka discloses the safety device of claim 1, wherein the retention device (34/32/29/40) has a body (34), a first compartment (29), and a second compartment (40).
Regarding claim 15, Zelka discloses the safety device of claim 10, further comprising a second alert member (36 - no first alert member is currently being claimed) releasably attached (see “removed” in col. 5 line 63) to the retention device and disposed within the second compartment (40).
Regarding claim 19, Zelka discloses a safety device comprising: a storage member (8) having a first portion (14), a second portion (16), and defining a first chamber, the second portion moveable between a first configuration (Figures 1 and 2) and a second configuration (see Figures 3-5), in the first configuration the second portion is releasably attached to the first portion (via zipper 21) such that the first portion and the second portion cooperatively define the chamber, in the second configuration the second portion is free of attachment to the first portion (see Figures 3-5); and a retention device (34/40) disposed within the chamber and having a retaining arm (an “arm” as so broadly claimed being interpretated as nothing more than an elongate object - see 34 or 40 in Figure 4); and a tool (28 or 36) releasably attached to the retention device.
Regarding claim 20, the normal operation and use of the Zelka device would involve a method of using a safety device comprising: obtaining a safety device, the safety device comprising: a storage member (8) having a first portion (14), a second portion (16), and defining a first chamber, the second portion moveable between a first configuration (Figures 1 and 2) and a second configuration (see Figures 3-5), in the first configuration the second portion is releasably attached to the first portion (via zipper 21) such that the first portion and the second portion cooperatively define the chamber, in the second configuration the second portion is free of attachment to the first portion (see Figures 3-5); and a retention device (34/40) disposed within the chamber and having a retaining arm (an “arm” as so broadly claimed being interpretated as nothing more than an elongate object - see 34 or 40 in Figure 4); and a tool (28 or 36) releasably attached to the retention device; attaching the safety device to a waist of a user (see Figure 1); moving the second portion from the first configuration to the second configuration (see Figure 3); removing the tool from the retention device (see Figure 2); and using the tool (see Figure 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zelka et al. (US 5,374,919 A) in view of Volpei et al. (US 5,294,031 A).
Regarding claim 7, Zelka discloses the safety device of claim 1, wherein the storage member defines a second chamber (24); but fails to disclose wherein the storage member defines a third chamber and a fourth chamber. Volpei teaches that it was already known in the art for a storage member like that of Zelka to define four chambers (left 26, right 26, 50, and 22) in addition to a first main chamber for carrying additional equipment (see col. 2 lines 3-13). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention as effectively filed to have provided the Zelka device with at least a third and fourth chamber, the motivation being to increase the carrying capacity of the device in the manner taught by Volpei.
10. Claims 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zelka et al. (US 5,374,919 A) in view of Rush (US 7,669,742 B2).
Regarding claim 11, Zelka discloses the safety device of claim 10, further comprising a container (28) of mace releasably attached (via 32) to the retention device; and further comprising a first alert member (36) releasably attached to the retention device and disposed within the first compartment (40). Zelka fails to disclose the container of mace being disposed between the body of the retention device and the retaining arm. Rush teaches that it was already known in the art for a personal defense article retention member to be in the form of a body (102) having an arm (104) that wraps around and retains the defense article (110) therebetween. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have replaced one portion (34/32/39) of the Zelka retention device (34/32/39/40) with a portion including a body and retaining arm, where such retention device design was already known to be suitable for such use, as shown by Rush. There is no inventive step in simply choosing between known retention device designs absent a showing of unexpected results.
11. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zelka et al. (US 5,374,919 A) in view of Rush (US 7,669,742 B2) as applied above, further in view of Krueger (US 10,948,268 B2).
Regarding claim 12, Zelka as modified above would include the safety device of claim 11, but so far fails to include wherein the first alert member has body and a first flag, the first flag releasably attached to the body of the first alert member. Zelka discloses the first alert member including a pull activator (48/50/36, see Figure 4) linked to the mace. Krueger teaches that it was also known in the art for an alert member to include a pull activator with a flag (426 - see Figures). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have replaced the pull activator of Zelka with a pull activator including a flag, where such pull activator design was already known to be suitable for such use, as taught by Krueger, also allowing a user to choose to activate the alert member independently of using the mace depending on the situation.
12. Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zelka et al. (US 5,374,919 A) in view of Rush (US 7,669,742 B2) and Krueger (US 10,948,268 B2) as applied above, further in view of Bush (US 6,529,121 B2).
Regarding claim 13, Zelka as modified above would include the safety device of claim 12, wherein Zelka discloses the first alert member is configured to produce an alerting sound when the first flag is detached from the first alert member (see col. 7 lines 4-5). Zelka fails to disclose wherein the first alert member is configured to produce a flashing light when the first flag is detached from the first alert member. Bush teaches that it was already known in the art for a safety alert like that of Zelka to include both audible sound and flashing lights (see col. 4 lines 10-25). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the alert of Zelka with flashing lights, as taught by Bush, the motivation being to increase the effectiveness of the alert in dark environments.
Regarding claim 14, Zelka as modified above would include the safety device of claim 12, wherein the first alert member is configured to produce an alerting sound, as taught by Zelka, and a flashing light, as taught by Bush, when the first flag is detached from the first alert member.
13. Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zelka et al. (US 5,374,919 A) in view of Krueger (US 10,948,268 B2).
Regarding claim 16, Zelka disclose the safety device of claim 15, but fails to disclose wherein the second alert member (36) has body and a second flag (no first flag currently claimed), the second flag releasably attached to the body of the second alert member. Zelka discloses the second alert member including a pull activator (48/50/36, see Figure 4) linked to the mace. Krueger teaches that it was also known in the art for an alert member to include a pull activator with a flag (426 - see Figures). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have replaced the pull activator of Zelka with a pull activator including a flag, where such pull activator design was already known to be suitable for such use, as taught by Krueger, also allowing a user to choose to activate the alert member independently of using the mace depending on the situation.
Regarding claim 17, Zelka as modified above would include the safety device of claim 16, wherein Zelka discloses the second alert member (36) is configured to produce an alerting sound when the second flag is detached from the second alert member (see col. 7 lines 4-5).
14. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zelka et al. (US 5,374,919 A) in view of Krueger (US 10,948,268 B2) as applied above, further in view of Bush (US 6,529,121 B2).
Regarding claim 18, Zelka as modified above would include the safety device of claim 16, wherein Zelka discloses the second alert member is configured to produce an alerting sound when the second flag is detached from the second alert member (see col. 7 lines 4-5). Zelka fails to disclose wherein the second alert member is configured to produce a flashing light when the second flag is detached from the second alert member. Bush teaches that it was already known in the art for a safety alert like that of Zelka to include both audible sound and flashing lights (see col. 4 lines 10-25). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the alert of Zelka with flashing lights, as taught by Bush, the motivation being to increase the effectiveness of the alert in dark environments.
Conclusion
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN MATTHEW LARSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8649. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-3pm. 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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at (571)272-4544. 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.
/JUSTIN M LARSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734 1/9/26