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 .
Claims 85-104 are pending in this application.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Main body 105 of specification paragraph [0113] is not shown.
Appropriate correction is required.
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
Main body of claims 85, 96 and 103,
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 95 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 95 line 1, “device claim 85” should be –device of claim 85--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 85-102 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 “comfortably fit” in claim 85 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “comfortably fit” 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. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation is interpreted as any fit.
Claims 86-102 are rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 85.
The term “to appeal” in claim 95 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “to appeal” 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. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation is interpreted as any color and pattern.
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.
Claims 85-92, 95-98, 100 and 103 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Battis (WO 2014131050 A1).
Regarding claim 85, Battis teaches a personal safety device (abstract, handheld self-protection device), comprising:
a main body (abstract, lightweight shell housings) having disposed therein a non-lethal defensive weapon (abstract, aerosol spray);
a hand enclosure (abstract, a handgrip with a plurality of finger grips);
a light (abstract, one or more of laser aperture); and
a bottom attachment (abstract, electrical discharge device);
wherein the main body is constructed with a size and shape to comfortably fit an average human female hand (abstract, a handheld self-protection device … including a handgrip with a plurality of finger grips).
Regarding claim 86, Battis teaches the personal safety device of claim 85, wherein the main body has a length of approximately 6 inches (e.g. 5.44 inches, fig.1).
Regarding claim 87, Battis teaches the personal safety device of claim 85, wherein the main body has a diameter between 1.3 and 1.5 inches (e.g. 1.35 inches, fig.1).
Regarding claim 88, Battis teaches the personal safety device of claim 85, wherein the main body has an oblong ergonomic contour ([0034], The frame features ergonomic finger grips).
Regarding claim 89, Battis teaches the personal safety device of claim 85, wherein the non-lethal defensive weapon comprises an aerosol lachrymatory agent ([0039], aerosol spray 200 - e.g., pepper spray).
Regarding claim 90, Battis teaches the personal safety device of claim 85, wherein the non-lethal defensive weapon comprises a telescoping friction baton with a conducted energy device (CED) ([0040], includes a removable Zap Trap(TM) Electrical discharge (high voltage) shocking system 300 … the probes are extendable or the jacket is retractable).
Regarding claim 91, Battis teaches the personal safety device of claim 85, wherein the hand enclosure comprises a strap (e.g. wrist strap interlock 500, fig.1).
Regarding claim 92, Battis teaches the personal safety device of claim 85, wherein the hand enclosure comprises a knuckle weapon (e.g. defense knuckles 250, fig.1) or wrist strap (e.g. wrist strap interlock 500, fig.1).
Regarding claim 95, Battis teaches the personal safety device of claim 85, wherein the main body has a color scheme or pattern selected to appeal to female users ([0039], The spray is designed to have an effective range) ([0042], the front face of the device designed to bruise and tear assailant's skin upon impact).
Regarding claim 96, Battis teaches a personal safety device (abstract, handheld self-protection device), comprising:
a main body (abstract, lightweight shell housings) having disposed therein an aerosol lachrymatory agent cartridge (abstract, aerosol spray) ([0039], aerosol spray 200 - e.g., pepper spray), with a spray nozzle oriented towards a first end of a short axis of the personal safety device (e.g. aerosol spray 200 oriented towards the front of the device, figs.1-2);
a hand enclosure located on the first end (e.g. HERO frame 100, fig.1);
a receiver for an attachment (e.g. bottom portion where removable zap trap 300 is attached, figs.1-2), the receiver located on a bottom end of a long axis of the personal safety device (e.g. 300 is located at the bottom, figs.1-2);
a light oriented towards the first end (e.g. green LED 120, white LED 140, Laser 120, figs.1-2); and
an actuator button (e.g. spray lever 220, fig.1) on a second end of the short axis of the personal safety device (e.g. 220 is towards the other end than 200 along short axis, figs.1-2);
wherein the main body is constructed with a size and shape to comfortably fit an average human female hand (abstract, a handheld self-protection device … including a handgrip with a plurality of finger grips).
Regarding claim 97, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 86.
Regarding claim 98, Battis teaches the personal safety device of claim 96, wherein the cartridge interlocks with the hand enclosure (e.g. interlock jack 520, figs.1-2), whereby the cartridge is not removeable with the hand enclosure attached ([0046], This interlock feature is designed to disable the device if it is wrenched out of the hand of the user).
Regarding claim 100, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 92.
Regarding claim 103, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claims 85 and 90.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim 93 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Battis (WO 2014131050 A1), and further in view of Erni (EP 3721741 B1).
Regarding claim 93, Battis teaches the personal safety device of claim 85, further comprising an alarm (i.e. audible alarm 420, fig.1) and a wrist loop (e.g. wrist strap interlock 500, fig.1), wherein the wrist loop is detachable ([0046], a wrist strap that has a break-away interlock key 510).
Battis does not teach, wherein detaching the wrist loop activates the alarm.
Erni teaches in a similar field of endeavor of wearable electronics, detaching a wrist loop activates an alarm (page 18, The hand strap 39 and the cable switch 39 are also designed as a trigger 5. If the alarm device 4 is forcibly stolen by the hand 6 of the user 2, the trigger 5 can be actuated).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optionally included detaching the wrist loop activates the alarm in Battis, as taught by Erni, as it provides the additional advantage of protecting the user by reliably sounding an alarm during forceful snatching.
Claims 94, 99, 101 and 102 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Battis (WO 2014131050 A1), and further in view of Bina (US 20210213308 A1).
Regarding claim 94, Battis teaches the personal safety device of claim 85.
Battis does not teach, wherein the bottom attachment comprises a key ring or glass breaker.
Bina teaches in a similar field of endeavor of self-defense tool, bottom attachment (e.g. lower portion of rear leg 40 and bottom connector 45, fig.1) comprises a key ring ([0037], clipped to the belt of a user, latch 70) or glass breaker (i.e. glass breaker 20, fig.1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optionally included the bottom attachment comprises a key ring or glass breaker in Battis, as taught by Bina, as it provides the additional advantage of protecting the user by providing a compact glass breaker and any other attachments, like whistle on a lanyard, to be clipped to the multi-purpose self-defense device.
Regarding claim 99, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 94.
Regarding claim 101, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 94.
Regarding claim 102, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 94.
Claim 104 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Battis (WO 2014131050 A1).
Regarding claim 104, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 86.
Battis does not teach, the telescoping friction baton has an extended length of between 12 and 16 inches.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the telescoping friction baton has an extended length of between 12 and 16 inches, since the applicant has not disclosed that 12 and 16 inches solves any problem or is for a particular reason. It appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with the telescoping friction baton has an extended length of between 12 and 16 inches, as it provides the advantage of ease of use and storage.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SREEYA SREEVATSA whose telephone number is (571)272-8304. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm ET.
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, Thienvu V Tran can be reached at (571) 270-1276. 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.
/SREEYA SREEVATSA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838 09/29/2026
