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 .
Response to Amendment
This is in response to amendment received on 09/16/26. Claims 1 and 21-23 have been amended and claim 24 has been newly added. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-15 and 17-24 are examined herein.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: support needs to be provided for “the first opening spaced away from an open ed of the first passageway” and “the second portion extending through the first opening substantially forming a first loop” as amended into claim 1.
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 1-3, 5-6, 9-14 and 23 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.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear what “substantially forming a first loop” would require structurally. The specification does not mention what a substantially formed first loop would include or exclude. It is unclear what would or would not read on the limitation as claimed.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear how the “first opening is arranged on, in, along or proximate the first end” and also be spaced away from an open ed of the first passageway. The two limitation are contradicting one another. It is unclear how the first end and the open end relate to each other, are they different ends of the first strap? The specification fails to mention or define what the “open end” is. It is unclear what is required to read on the claim.
Any remaining claims are rejected depending from a rejected base claim.
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) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Steingold (US 1,725,425).
In regard to claim 21, Steingold teaches a headband comprising: a first strap (figures 1-3 and 5, identifiers 8 (sweatband) and 9 (outer band) connected together: figure 3), including: a first layer forming a first radially inward facing surface and a first radially outward facing surface (layer 9: outer band); a second layer forming a second radially inward facing surface and a second radially outward facing surface (layer 9: sweatband, see figure 3), the second layer operatively arranged to contact the first layer (see figure 3); a first end comprising a first passageway (passageway: see figures 1 and 3, right side); a second end comprising a second passageway (passageway: see figures 1 and 3, left side), the second end being displaceable with respect to the first end (adjustable hat: page 1, column 1, lines 1-2; when the belt 16 is tightened vs. loosened the first and second end of the passageways will be displaceable with respect to one another); a first opening arranged on, in, along, or proximate to the first end (right opening: 15), wherein the first opening extends through the first layer from the first radially inward facing surface to the first radially outward facing surface (see figures 1 and 5); and a second opening arranged on, in, along, or proximate to the second end (left opening: 15); a second strap connected to the first strap (second strap is right narrow end of band 16), the second strap arranged at least partially through the first passageway and the first opening (see figures 1, 3-5); and a third strap connected to the first strap (third strap is left narrow end of band 16), the third strap arranged at least partially through the second passageway and the second opening (see figures 1, 3-5); wherein the third strap is operatively arranged to selectively connect to the second strap (see figures 1, connected at clasp: 17).
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(s) 15, 17-20 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kennedy (US 2018/0103740) in view of Iosilevich et al. (US 9,339,102).
In regard to claim 15, Kennedy teaches a headband for mounting one or more electronic devices (see figure 1), comprising: a first strap (12), including: a first end comprising a first passageway; a second end comprising a second passageway (paragraph 0021); a second strap including a third end and a fourth end, the third end fixedly secured to the first strap (strap: 14 connected to adjuster 16, figures 3 and 4) the second strap attached to the first strap and forming a loop (see loop formed by strap 14 and adjuster 16 in figures 3 and 4); and a third strap including a fifth end and a sixth end, the fifth end fixedly secured to the first strap, the third strap attached to the first forming a second loop (strap: 14 looped to clasp 18, figures 3 and 4); and the third strap is operatively arranged to adjustably connect to the second strap to form a secured state of the headband (see figures 1 and 2, connected via loop and clasp: 18).
However, Kennedy fails to specifically teach the openings to the passageways and the connection of the straps within the passageways and through the openings.
losilevich et al. teaches a three strap belt (see figures 14-16), wherein a first strap is connected to a second and third strap within passageways to form the belt (first strap: 320, second strap: 332, third strap: other of 332; passageways: 121); wherein a first opening is arranged on, in, along, or proximate to the first end (see figure 14); and a second opening arranged on, in, along, or proximate to the second end (see figure 14); the second strap connected to the first strap (figure 14, column 4, lines 11-16), the second strap arranged at least partially through the first passageway and the first opening (see figure 14); and the third strap connected to the first strap (other of 332: figure 14, column 4, lines 11-16), the third strap arranged at least partially through the second passageway and the second opening (see figure 14); the second strap arranged at least partially through the first passageway and the first opening (see figure 14); the third strap arranged at least partially through the second passageway and the second opening (see figure 14); a first portion of the second strap extends in the first passageway in a circumferential direction (see figure 14).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the connection of the second and third straps of Kennedy with the attachment, passageway, and opening arrangement as taught by losilevich et al., since the connection of the second and third straps within the passageways and extending through the openings of the inner and outer layer of the first strap would provide a secure and aesthetically pleasing attachment of the straps forming the band.
In regard to claim 17, Kennedy teaches wherein the second strap (14 with 16) is slidingly engaged with the first strap to move the first loop between a first loosened state (loop attachment clip 16 with strap can be loosened), wherein the first loop has a first size, and a first tightened state, wherein the loop has a second size, less than the first size (paragraph 0021).
Iosilevich et al. teaches the second strap engaged within the first passageway (see figure 14, strap 332 and attachment in passageway between belt 310: column 3, lines 13-16).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the connection of the second and third straps of Kennedy with the attachment and passageway and opening arrangement as taught by Iosilevich et al., since the connection of the second and third straps within the passageways and extending through the openings of the inner and outer layer of the first strap would provide a secure and aesthetically pleasing attachment of the straps forming the band.
In regard to claim 18, the combined references teach wherein the third strap (Kennedy: 14 with clip 18) is slidingly engaged with the second passageway (Iosilevich et al. teaches third strap 332 engaged with second passageway) to move the second loop between a second loosened state and a second tightened state (Kennedy teaches the third strap 14 being elastic which would provide the slidingly engagement of the passageway and the strap to make loop attaching clip 18 tight or loose as force is exerted: paragraph 0018).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the connection of the second and third straps of Kennedy with the attachment, passageway and opening arrangement as taught by Iosilevich et al., since the connection of the second and third straps within the passageways and extending through the openings of the inner and outer layer of the first strap would provide a secure and aesthetically pleasing attachment of the straps forming the band.
In regard to claim 19, Kennedy teaches wherein the second strap (14 with clasp: 16) comprises a non- elastic portion arranged proximate the third end (non-elastic portion is slip claps 16 arranged closed to strap 12), and an elastic portion arranged proximate the fourth end (elastic portion at fourth end is loop of elastic strap: 14, paragraph 0018).
In regard to claim 20, the combined references teach wherein the elastic portion (Kennedy: elastic strap 14) extends out of the first passageway past the first end (see figures 3 and 4 of Kennedy) (Iosilevich et al. teaches the passageway and strap arrangement at first end: see figure 14).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the connection of the second and third straps of Kennedy with the attachment, passageway, and opening arrangement as taught by Iosilevich et al., since the connection of the second and third straps within the passageways and extending through the openings of the inner and outer layer of the first strap would provide a secure and aesthetically pleasing attachment of the straps forming the band.
In regard to claim 24, Kennedy teaches wherein the first loop is formed proximate the third end, and the fourth end is arranged to be connected to the sixth end (first loop: formed via strap 14 and clip 16 which is proximate the third end and the fourth end loop end is arranged to be connected to clip 18 at sixth end; see figure 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remarks with respect to claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-14 and 23 are convincing based upon the claim amendments made to independent claim 1.
Applicant remarks that Steinfold fails to anticipate the amended limitation of claim 21.
Steingold teaches the amended limitation as detailed above in the office action.
Applicant remarks that Kennedy in view of Iosilevich et al. fails to teach a first passageway or a second passageway. The Primary Examiner contends that Kennedy discloses these limitations in paragraph [0021]. Id. at page 8. However, paragraph [0021] of Kennedy does not disclose that body 12 has any passageways at its ends. Kennedy discloses that body 12 may be made of two separate pieces, but that these pieces are "sewn together with thread along the lateral edges of the pieces creating body 12 of the headband 10." Kennedy, paragraph [0021]. Thus, body 12 does not include any passages or openings since all of the lateral edges thereof have been sealed via threading. Furthermore, Kennedy discloses that "straps 14 may then be sewn onto each end of the material leaving a gap between their ends." Id.; see also paragraph [0018] ("[a]n elastic strap 14 is joined to each of a first end and a second end of the body"). Thus, not only does Kennedy not have passages as is required by claim 15 of the present application, there would be no reason to modify Kennedy with passages as straps 14 are sewn to the ends of body 12 (i.e., they are not arranged inward of the ends of body 12).
Kennedy teaches a gap in the body for the straps to be attached at each end of the body, the gap at each end is the passageway in which the strap are passed and attached. The sewn seams do not destroy the gap/passageway formed in the body retaining the straps therein.
Applicant remarks that neither Kennedy nor Iosilevich disclose a strap arranged through a passageway and an opening to form a loop. In the present application, the strap (40, 60) is arranged through the passageway (31, 33) and the opening (34A, 34B, 36A, 36B) of the first strap (20) to form a loop (12, 14). Thus, according to the embodiment of the invention recited in claim 15 of the present application, the loop is dependent on and formed by the arrangement of the strap through the passageway and the opening. This is not the case in the cited references. For example, Iosilevich merely discloses a loop formed at the end of second strap 332 for the purposes of connecting buckle 334. Such loop is completely unrelated to the arrangement of the second strap through the passageway and the first opening. Thus, it cannot be said that strap 332 is arranged through the first passageway and the first opening to form the loop. Rather, the arrangement of strap 332 through a passageway or opening has no impact on the loop, which is formed solely from the second strap 332. Similarly, Kennedy merely discloses a loop at a distal end of the second and third straps 14 for engaging a clip 16/18, and there is no loop formed via an engagement of a second strap or third strap with the first strap.
The limitations in claim 15 detail “the second strap arranged at least partially through the first passageway and the first opening to form a first loop” and “the third strap arranged at least partially through the second passageway and the second opening to form a second loop”, Kennedy teaches the straps arranged at least partially though the passageways to form loops (see figure 4). The openings at the end of the passageway are taught by Iosilevich et al. (see figures 14 and 15). The claim details that the straps need to partially extend through the passageways and openings, and then form loops, there is no limitation requiring the loop to be formed within the passageway or the opening, only for the strap to at least partially extend through the passageway and opening.
Applicant remarks that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have modified Kennedy with the teachings of Iosilevich. The Primary Examiner contends that the reason for modification would be to provide a secure and aesthetically pleasing attachment of the straps forming the headband 10. Office Action, pages 9-10.
In KSR, the Supreme Court indicated that "[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability." KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007).Here, Kennedy teaches a band to be worn around a user’s body with a passageway and two attached straps, Iosilevich teaches a band to be worn around a user’s body with a passageway and two attached straps. Here, we are taking one well-known body band attachment of straps (Kennedy) and replacing it with another well-known body band attachment of straps (Iosilevich). Applicant’s invention, Kennedy, and Iosilevich are all in the same field of endeavor teaching bands to be worn around a user’s body.
Applicant remarks that Kennedy discloses that the second strap 14 is slidingly engaged with the first strap to move the first loop between a first loosened state and a first tightened state, wherein the first loop has a first size, and a first tightened state, and the loop has a second size, less than the first size as found in claim 17. The Primary Examiner further contends that Iosilevich discloses the second strap engaged within the first passageway, and that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify Kennedy with the teachings of Iosilevich. Id.
None of the references disclose a loop that changes sizes due to sliding engagement of a second strap with a first strap. For example, Kennedy discloses that the adjustment of loop for clip 16 is based solely on third strap 14, and is completely independent of, and unrelated to, any engagement with first strap 12. Not to mention, third strap 14 is not slidingly engaged with first strap 12 so the adjustment of the loop for clip 16 cannot be based thereon. Similarly, in Iosilevich, the loop that holds buckle 334 is arranged solely at the distal end of second strap 332, and while Iosilevich does not disclose that such loop is adjustable, any adjustment thereto would be completely independent of the engagement of second strap 332 with first strap 320 (i.e., adjustment would occur solely within second strap 332).
Kennedy teaches the strap made of spandex (paragraph 0021) and teaches an adjuster clip 15 that adjusts the strap 14 all the way to the body of the headband. Iosilevich teaches the passageway arrangement, so that when supplied, with a spandex strap and adjuster clip with the opening and passageway, would allow for the loop to be adjusted in size by the slidingly engagement of the elastic spandex material and the adjuster clip.
Applicant remarks that Kennedy and Iosilevich fail to teach the third
strap 14 is slidingly engaged with the second passageway to move the second loop between a second loosened state and a second tightened state as found in claim 18, since none of the references disclose a loop that changes sizes due to sliding engagement of a second strap with a first strap.
Kennedy teaches the third strap (14 with clip 18) being slidingly engaged with the second passageway due to the spandex material, paragraph 0021. Iosilevich et al. teaches a third strap 332 engaged with second passageway. Kennedy teaches the second loop being movable between a second loosened state and a second tightened state (third strap 14 being elastic which would provide the slidingly engagement of the passageway and the strap to make loop attaching clip 18 tight or loose as force is exerted: paragraph 0018).
Applicant remarks that Kennedy fails to disclose that second strap comprises a
non-elastic portion arranged proximate the third end and an elastic portion arranged proximate the fourth end. First, adjuster clip 16 is not a strap.
The spandex strap is 14 that comprises the adjuster clip 16, creating an elastic and non-elastic strap. The claims do not limit the strap to not include the structure that is attached to it. Further, it is noted that the “proximate” language is broad and can read on many different locations and placements.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALISSA L HOEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4985. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00-5:30 EST.
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 T 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.
ALISSA L. HOEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3732
/ALISSA L HOEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
