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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Claim 9, recites that the height of the first edge decreases gradually from an outside towards and inside and then further recites that the second edge decreases gradually from the outside towards the inside.
Claim 10, recites that the height of the third edge decreases gradually from an outside towards and inside and then further recites that the fourth edge decreases gradually from the outside towards the inside. These element decreasing in the same way is not shown. This 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 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 2, 4 -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.
Claim 2 recites that “a maximum value of a difference between a height or the back side edge and a height of the palm side edge is greater than or equal to 20mm”. It is unclear how an edge has a height. An edge is defined by dictionary.com as “an outside limit”. Further it is unclear what the height difference is in relationship to? Is applicant attempting to claim that the edge is a separate element having a varying measurement, such as a band with a different thicknesses? Is applicant attempting to claim that the edges in relationship to one another have different heights with respect to an axis? (i.e. a horizontal or vertical axis). It is unclear what applicant is attempting to claim. Further clarification is required.
Claim 4 recites “the palm side edge is, at least partly, positioned on the bottom side with respect to a straight line”. It is unclear what structural element is the straight line. Is it an imaginary straight line? Or part of the structure of the device? Further clarification is required.
Claim 5 recites “the palm side edge, in its entirety positioned on the bottom side with respect the straight line”. Again, it is unclear what structural element is the straight line. Is it an imaginary straight line? Or part of the structure of the device? Further clarification is required.
Claim 6 recites “the back side edge is, at least partly, positioned on a top side with respect to a straight line”. It is unclear what structural element is the straight line. Is it an imaginary straight line? Or part of the structure of the device? Further clarification is required.
Claim 7 recites “the back side edge in its entirety positioned on the top side with respect to the straight line”. Again, it is unclear what structural element is the straight line. Is it an imaginary straight line? Or part of the structure of the device? Further clarification is required.
Claim 8 recites that “palm side edge has a shape protruding toward a bottom side of the back side edge”. It is unclear what applicant is referring to? Does the edge form a shape (as in scalloped, or rounded)? or the entirety of the length of the edge protrude in a direction? It is unclear what applicant is claiming with respect to the structure of the edge.
Claim 9 recites that the height of the first edge decreases gradually from an outside towards and inside and then further recites that the second edge decreases gradually from the outside towards the inside. It is unclear how both elements can decrease in the same direction and contradicts what is shown in figure 4, which shows a first edge (20a) increasing gradually from an outside to an inside. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 10 recites that the height of the third edge decreases gradually from an outside towards and inside and then further recites that the fourth edge decreases gradually from the outside towards the inside. It is unclear how both elements can decrease in the same direction and contradicts what is shown in figure 4, which shows a third edge (22a) increasing gradually from an outside to an inside. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 12 recites “a height of an outside end is greater than a height of an inside end”. It is unclear how and end has a height. An “end” is defined by dictionary.com as “a point, line, or limitation that indicates the full extent, degree, etc., of something; limit; bounds”. It is unclear how a limit has a height. Further it’s unclear what the height is in relationship to. Is applicant trying to recite the position of the end when worn? Is applicant claiming the distance of the outside end with respect to a specific plane? (i.e. Horizontal or vertical)? Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(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.
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, 3-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Skeffington (US 375,958). The device of Skeffington teaches,
With respect to claim 1,
A pointing device operating sleeve (c ) comprising:
a palm cover (J, Figure 5) configured to cover a part of a palm (Figure 1), the palm cover including a first opening (near L, figure 1 and 5); and
an arm cover ( F; Figure 1) configured to cover at least a part of a forearm (Figure 1), the arm cover being continuous with the palm cover and including a second opening (at A, Figures 2 and 3) , wherein:
the first opening includes an outside end (H), an inside end (H), a back-side edge (top edge, where L is secured; figure 5, see annotated figure below ), and a palm-side edge (bottom distal end of J, edge closes to element L, see annotated figure below);
the back-side edge and the palm-side edge each being positioned between the outside end and the inside end (Figure 5) and the palm-side edge is, at least partly, positioned on a bottom side with respect to the back-side edge ( Figure 5).
With respect to claim 3, herein the palm-side edge is, in its entirety, positioned on the bottom side with respect to the back-side edge (see annotated figure below).
With respect to claim 4, wherein the palm-side edge is, at least partly, positioned on the bottom side (see annotated figure below) with respect to a straight line (see annotated figure) that connects between the outside end and the inside end.
With respect to claim 5, wherein the palm-side edge is, in its entirety, positioned on the bottom side with respect to the straight line (see annotated figure below).
With respect to claim 6, wherein the back-side edge (see annotated figure ) is, at least partly, positioned on a top side (see annotated figure ) with respect to a straight line that connects between the outside end and the inside end. It is noted in the annotated figure that the dash line shows that the seam of H-H is below the upper element. This is also shown in figure 4, where K and the edge of K is wholly above the ends of H.
With respect to claim 7, wherein the back-side edge is, in its entirety, positioned on the top side with respect to the straight line (see annotated figure). It is noted in the annotated figure that the dash line shows that the seam of H-H is below the upper element. This is also shown in figure 4, where K and the edge of K is wholly above the ends of H.
With respect to claim 8, wherein the palm-side edge (Figure 6) has a shape (rounded) protruding toward the bottom side (rounded upward toward the bottom side of the back side edge), and the back-side edge has a shape protruding toward a top side (rounded at a tope of the back side edge), as best understood. Further the device is a flexible fabric and is capable of taking the shape of the wearer creating a three dimensional shape extending in the direction recited.
With respect to claim 9, wherein: the back-side edge includes a first edge and a second edge (see annotated figure below), the second edge being positioned on an inside with respect to the first edge (see annotated figure below);
a height of the first edge decreases gradually (as best understood) from an outside toward the inside (see annotated figure );
a height of the second edge decreases gradually from the outside toward the inside (see annotated figure);
and a decrease rate of the height of the second edge is greater than a decrease rate of the height of the first edge. It is noted that along the line, that the decrease in height of a portion of the second edge is greater than a portion along the first edge, therefore meeting the claim as currently recited.
With respect to claim 10, wherein: the palm-side edge includes a third edge and a fourth edge (see annotated figure below), the fourth edge being positioned on an inside with respect to the third edge (see annotated figure below);
a height of the third edge decreases gradually from an outside toward the inside (as best understood);
a height of the fourth edge decreases gradually from the outside toward the inside (see annotated figure);
and a decrease rate of the height of the third edge is greater than a decrease rate of the height of the fourth edge. It is noted that along the line, that the decrease in height of a portion of the third edge is greater than a portion along the fourth edge, therefore meeting the claim as currently recited.
With respect to claim 11, wherein the palm cover includes a back-side panel and a palm-side panel (Figure 5), the palm-side panel having an area (Figure 5) that is less than an area (near K) of the back-side panel.
With respect to claim 12, as best understood, wherein a height of the outside end is greater than a height of the inside end. At least a point on the outside end has a greater height than a point on an inside end, therefore meeting the claims as currently recited (see annotated figure below).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skeffington.
With respect to claim 2, as best understood, the device of Skeffington teaches a height of a back side edge (as measured from a distance of the Horizontal axis shown in the annotated figures, “straight line”) and a height of a palm side edge ((as measured from a distance of the Horizontal axis shown in the annotated figures, “straight line”), having a height of the back side being greater than a height of the palm side, but is silent with respect to a value.
It has been held that discovering an optimum value as a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art and since such modification would involve a mere change in the size of a component and would have been understood to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as effectively filed.
The device of Skeffington teaches a device worn on hand, and would be expected to have a similar measurement of being more than 20mm, since it is shown to cover the back of the hand. It has been cited by legal precedent in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984),cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. The device claimed by the applicant would not perform differently than the prior art device of Skeffington and is therefore not patentably distinct.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Back side edge)]
[AltContent: textbox (Back side edge, first edge)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Straight line)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Inside end)][AltContent: textbox (Palm side edge )]
PNG
media_image1.png
266
414
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Back side edge, second edge)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
[AltContent: textbox (Outside, higher )][AltContent: textbox (inside)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Palm side edge, third edge)][AltContent: textbox (Palm side edge, fourth edge)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image2.png
174
338
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892
Please Note, the art of recorded cited in the PTO-892 may be relevant to the features of the invention both claimed and unclaimed or are relevant to the overall inventive concept. The best art has been set forward in the office action, as determined by the examiner and the art references provided are to establish other significant and relevant art and to promote compact prosecution.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHALE L QUINN whose telephone number is (571)272-8689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am -5pm.
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 Ostrup can be reached at 5712725559. 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.
RICHALE LEE. QUINN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3765
/RICHALE L QUINN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732