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 .
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.
2. Claims 1-18 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.
Claims 1 and 12 both recite “a document pack receiving section on the fabric material”. It is unclear if this claimed “receiving section” is simply a section / segment / portion of the fabric material itself to which a connection mechanism or fastener can be provided but it not yet claimed in combination or if it includes a connection mechanism or fastener that allows the section to “receive” the document pack. The use of the word “on” would seem to imply the latter, but this becomes less clear when considering that claims 3 and 14 go on to recite a “connection mechanism that removably receives the document pack”.
Claims 1 and 12 also both recite “a sleeve securing section on the fabric material”. The ambiguity surrounding the “document pack receiving section” bring into question the scope of this limitation as well. Does the sleeve securing section as presently claimed include a fastener or not?
For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that the “document pack receiving section” and the “sleeve securing section” as recited in claims 1 and 12 each include some sort of connection mechanism or fastener.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tourigny (US 5,170,917 A) in view of Grosz (US 2,542,246 A), Cano (WO 2009/025537 A1), and Rothschild et al. (US 9,271,531 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Tourigny discloses a system, comprising: a sleeve (19), comprising: a document pack receiving section on the fabric material (see “secured to” in col. 2 lines 61-62); a sleeve securing section on the fabric material (see “VELCRO” in col. 2 lines 64-67); and a slip ring holding section at a second end of the fabric material that receives a slip ring (21); and a document pack (10/12/16).
Tourigny fails to disclose the sleeve being made of a fabric material; a grab bar receiving section at a first end of the fabric material that removably receives a grab bar; the slip ring being removably received in the slip ring holding section; and the document pack comprising a plurality of pages that is removably received on the document pack receiving section.
Regarding the sleeve being made of fabric material, Tourigny never specifically discloses fabric but does disclose the sleeve may be elastic (see col. 3 lines 7-10). Cano teaches a similar sleeve made from elastic fabric (see Page 5 lines 19-20). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have made the Tourigny sleeve from elastic fabric, where elastic fabric was already known to be suitable for such use, as shown by Cano. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding the grab bar receiving section and grab bar, Grosz teaches it was already known in the art to provide a thickened strap end in the form of a grab bar receiving section that removably receives a grab bar (see col. 2 lines 46-49) in order to prevent the strap end from passing back through a slip ring (26) and Cano teaches it was already known to utilize such a thickened strap end (see Page 5 lines 20-27) with a sleeve slip ring like that of Tourigny for easier one-handed use (see Cano Figure 8 and Cano Page 7 lines 10-15). 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 free end of the Tourigny sleeve with a thickened strap end in the form of a grab bar receiving section that removably receives a grab bar, as taught by Grosz, the motivation being to enable easier one-handed use by preventing the strap end from falling back out of the slip ring, as taught by Cano.
Regarding the slip ring being removably received in the slip ring holding section, Tourigny does not specify how the slip ring (21) is attached. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand through their own available knowledge and reasoning that the only two options are for the Tourigny ring to be permanently attached and removably attached and would also have realized that removable attachment would allow for replacement of a damaged ring – thus finding it obvious to make it so. It has been held that if it were considered desirable for any reason to make one element removable, it would be obvious to make that element removable for that purpose. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349.
Regarding the document pack comprising a plurality of pages and being removably received on the document pack receiving section, Tourigny does not seem to teach multiple pages and also is silent as to how the document pack is “secured to” (see col. 2 lines 61-62) the sleeve. Rothschild teaches that it was already known for a document pack like that of Tourigny to be removably received on a sleeve using hook and loop fasteners (208/209) and for the document pack to include a plurality of pages (see 206 and 207). 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 document pack of Tourigny with a removable and multi-page document pack like that of Rothschild as a simple substitution of one known document pack for another in order to achieve predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Tourigny as modified above would include the system of claim 1, wherein the fabric material comprises elastic loop fabric, as collectively taught by Cano (elastic and loop) and Tourigny (loop).
Regarding claim 3, Tourigny as modified above would include the system of claim 1, wherein the document pack receiving section comprises a connection mechanism that removably receives the document pack, as taught by Rothschild (loop 208).
Regarding claim 4, Tourigny as modified above would include the system of claim 3, wherein the document pack comprises a corresponding connection mechanism to the connection mechanism on the document pack receiving section, as taught by Rothschild (hook 209).
Regarding claim 5, Tourigny as modified above would include the system of claim 3, wherein the connection mechanism comprises a hook material or a loop material, as taught by Rothschild.
Regarding claim 6, Tourigny as modified above would include the system of claim 3, but so far fails to include wherein the connection mechanism comprises a snap. Currently the connection mechanism is VELCRO, as taught by Rothschild. Tourigny himself teaches that snaps and VELCRO are interchangeable fasteners (see col. 3 lines 31-33). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have at least tried replacing the VELCRO document pack connection in the modified Tourigny sleeve with a snap as a simple substitution of one known connection mechanism for another in order to achieve predictable results.
Regarding claim 7, Tourigny as modified above would include the system of claim 1, wherein the grab bar receiving section comprises a pocket that receives the grab bar, as taught by Grosz (see col. 2 lines 46-49).
Regarding claim 8, Tourigny as modified above would include the system of claim 1, wherein first end of the fabric material further comprises a fastener that is releasably secured to the sleeve securing section after the first end of the fabric material is passed through the slip ring, as originally taught by Tourigny (see “VELCRO” in col. 2 lines 64-67).
Regarding claim 9, Tourigny as modified above would include the system of claim 1, wherein the document pack comprises a plurality of pieces of printed material, as collectively taught by Tourigny and Rothschild.
Regarding claim 10, Tourigny as modified above would include the system of claim 9, wherein the printed material comprises a map, as originally taught by Tourigny (see “map” in Abstract).
Regarding claim 11, Tourigny as modified above would include the system of claim 9, wherein the document pack further comprises a cover that covers the pieces of printed material, as collectively taught by Tourigny and Rothschild (both teach transparent coverings).
Regarding claim 12, Tourigny as modified above would include a sleeve, as originally taught by Tourigny, comprising: a fabric material, as taught by Cano; a grab bar receiving section at a first end of the fabric material that removably receives a grab bar, as taught by Grosz; a document pack receiving section on the fabric material, as taught by Rothschild; a sleeve securing section on the fabric material, as taught by Tourigny; and a slip ring holding section at a second end of the fabric material that removably receives a slip ring, as set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Tourigny as modified above would include the system of claim 12, wherein the fabric material comprises elastic loop fabric, as collectively taught by Cano (elastic and loop) and Tourigny (loop).
Regarding claim 14, Tourigny as modified above would include the system of claim 12, wherein the document pack receiving section comprises a connection mechanism that removably receives the document pack, as taught by Rothschild (loop 208).
Regarding claim 15, Tourigny as modified above would include the system of claim 14, wherein the connection mechanism comprises a hook material or a loop material, as taught by Rothschild.
Regarding claim 16, Tourigny as modified above would include the system of claim 14, but so far fails to include wherein the connection mechanism comprises a snap. Currently the connection mechanism is VELCRO, as taught by Rothschild. Tourigny himself teaches that snaps and VELCRO are interchangeable fasteners (see col. 3 lines 31-33). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have at least tried replacing the VELCRO document pack connection in the modified Tourigny sleeve with a snap as a simple substitution of one known connection mechanism for another in order to achieve predictable results.
Regarding claim 17, Tourigny as modified above would include the system of claim 12, wherein the grab bar receiving section comprises a pocket that receives the grab bar, as taught by Grosz (see col. 2 lines 46-49).
Regarding claim 18, Tourigny as modified above would include the system of claim 12, wherein first end of the fabric material further comprises a fastener that is releasably secured to the sleeve securing section after the first end of the fabric material is passed through the slip ring, as originally taught by Tourigny (see “VELCRO” in col. 2 lines 64-67).
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kellerhals (US 2011/0167536), Jones (US 5400936), Leinberger (US 5477633), Connell (US 4415106), Greene (US 5386933), and Phair (US 2012/0055963) disclose a related arm-mounted document holders.
Prigmore (US 5221031) teaches a related VELCRO arm-mounted holder.
Cuervo (US 2023/0240383) teaches a grab ring 180 that prevents a strap end from passing back through a ring 140 for easier one-handed operation.
Tentler (US 7320318) teaches a grab tab 30 that prevents a strap end from passing back through a ring 42.
Lipsitz (US 3001566) teaches a grab bar (72) removable received with a grab bar receiving section (68).
Tunnell (US 5732978) discloses a document pack.
7. 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 9/24/26
