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 because the specification labels 24 as the flap exterior surface and 44 as the adjacent exterior surface. However, the drawings show these features incorrectly labeled in figure 2. 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.
Claims 1-10 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.
The term “where an exterior surface of the pocket flap is substantially flush relative to an exterior surface of the cushion body that is immediately adjacent to the pocket portion” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “where an exterior surface of the pocket flap is substantially flush relative to an exterior surface of the cushion body that is immediately adjacent to the pocket portion” 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. This statement does not appear to be wholly true. The figures show the pocket as a protrusion relative to the cushion body. Drawings label 44 as the exterior surface of the flap. It is clear that the top of the flap and sides of the flaps aren't adjacent. Therefore the exterior surface of the pocket flap is not flush with the cushion body. The bottom of 44 however appears to be flush. . Further, claim 7 even discusses the lip (of the pocket) as a protrusion relative to the cushion body, so the term “substantially flush” is not limited to only a flush relationship. Claims 2-10 directly or indirectly depend from claim 1 and are also rejected.
The term “oval shaped” in claim 5is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “oval shaped” 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. The drawings do not depict an "oval shaped" cross section. A true oval does not have straight sections. In fact, a true oval would result in a noticeable tracker, as the tracker is a linearly shaped object. This functionality teaches away from the present invention. For the purposes of examination, it shall be interpreted that the device is oval-like shaped, not a true oval shape.
The term “straight-away” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “straight-away” 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. This claim establishes an oval shape with a straight section. However, ovals do not have straight sections. See arguments pertaining to claim rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112b above. The drawings and specification support a shape that is not a true oval. Proper remediation (changing of the term oval-shaped) of claim 5 will obviate this rejection.
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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Ciaciuch (US 12108851 B1).
With respect to claim 1, Ciaciuch discloses a jewelry storage case cushion, comprising: a cushion body (10 excluding 40) dimensioned and shaped to be retained in a jewelry storage case; and a pocket (40) along the body, wherein the pocket is defined by a pocket flap (material of 40) and a pocket portion (portion of 134 adjacent beneath 40) of the cushion body, wherein the pocket flap moves between an open position and a closed position where an exterior surface of the pocket flap is substantially flush (side view of figure 3E) relative to an exterior surface of the cushion body that is immediately adjacent to the pocket portion .
PNG
media_image1.png
282
474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Ciaciuch discloses the jewelry storage case cushion of claim 1, further comprising a tracking device (41) removably housed in the pocket, wherein the tracking device is not visible when the pocket is in the closed position.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 3-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ciaciuch (US 12108851 B1) in view of Sloot (US 7393336 B2).
With respect to claim 3, the references as applied to claim 2, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for further comprising a first fastener along an interior surface of the pocket flap; and a second fastener along the pocket portion, wherein the first and second fastener engage to in the closed position so as to form a locked engagement between the pocket flap and the pocket portion. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely hidden pockets, Sloot taught of a pocket fastening system that required a first and second system (18a, 18b) that engages one another, located on the pocket flap and pocket portion as an alternative means for fixing the pocket. Ciaciuch already taught of a retractable elasticized closure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of pockets before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the hook and loop pocket fastener as taught by Sloot for the closure as disclosed by Ciaciuch since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, with the difference being the substitution of the elements. In the present case, Sloots configuration allows for engagement between the pocket flap and pocket portion. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the one known element for the other to produce a predictable result (MPEP 2143).
With respect to claim 4, the references as applied to claim 3, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Ciaciuch further discloses wherein the cushion body is dimensioned and shaped to be encircled by a wrist-worn jewelry (31).
With respect to claim 5, the references as applied to claim 4, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Ciaciuch further discloses wherein the cushion body has an oval-shaped cross section for being encircled by the wrist-worn jewelry. (shape of Figures 3D can be understood to be oval-shaped. Further due to the flexibility of Ciaciuchs design, an oval like shape can be easily achieved.)
With respect to claim 6, the references as applied to claim 5, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Ciaciuch further discloses wherein a lip of the pocket is located along a straight-away of the oval-shaped cross-section. Ciaciuch is a flexible material which can be made to resemble an oval-like shape with straight aways. This modification is considered as a change of shape of Ciaciuch design and not novel in view of the guidelines established In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Essentially, Ciaciuch and the present invention operate the same with the same working pieces, the only difference is the shape of Ciaciuch is a flexible oval like shape and an oval like shape with straight sides. In re Dailey established that a "change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results." The application has presented no argument which shows that the particular configuration of their oval like shape with straight aways is significant or is anything more than one of numerous configurations a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for pocket placement from Ciaciuchs invention. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459.
With respect to claim 7, the references as applied to claim 6, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Ciaciuch further discloses wherein said lip protrudes away from the exterior surface of the cushion body between zero and 0.10 millimeters in the closed position. (Appears to be flush from figures 1E and 3E).
Examiner Note: It is believed Ciaciuch discloses the matter above, however, if not considered flush, the modification of Ciaciuch to the dimensions specified above would be considered as a change of shape of Ciaciuchs design and not novel in view of the guidelines established In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
With respect to claim 8, the references as applied to claim 7, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Ciaciuch further discloses wherein a height of the lip (opening of 40), from one end of the cushion body, is between sixty to eighty percent of an end-to-end length of the cushion body. (This relationship can be seen by figure 3E of Ciaciuch. The lip height is approximately 60 to 80 percent an end to end length of the cushion body.)
With respect to claim 9, the references as applied to claim 8, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Ciaciuch further discloses, further comprising one or more case connectors (80) along a face of the cushioned body.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ciaciuch (US 12108851 B1) in view of Sloot (US 7393336 B2) and O’Malley (US 8667627 B1).
With respect to claim 10, the references as applied to claim 9, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for further comprising a false stitching along the external surface of the pocket flap adjacent to the lip. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely fabric goods, O’Malley taught of the use of hemming edges in order to prevent fraying of edges (col 3 lines 41-48). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the surface adjacent to the lip to include a false stitching (such as a hem) as taught by O’Malley in order to prevent fraying of the edge of the pocket.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-12108851-B1 OR US-7393336-B2 OR US-11278085-B2 OR US-10602820-B2 OR US-7461421-B1 OR US-7089617-B1 OR US-4688286-A OR US-3149452-A OR US-D300414-S OR US-7992830-B2 OR US-5636775-A OR US-20090151077-A1
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYMREN K SANGHERA whose telephone number is (571)272-5305. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached on (571)272-4561. 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.
/SYMREN K SANGHERA/Examiner, Art Unit 3735