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 .
Claim Status
In the preliminary amendment of 07 March 2025, claims 1-6, 8-13, 16-25 are amended and claims 7, 14-15 are canceled, leaving claims 1-6, 8-13, and 16-25 pending.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 and 8-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 5 and 6 are drawn to functions of the support member. In claim 5, the spacing means is hinged to the support member such that the spacing means is adapted to rotate around a pivot point of the support member and in claim 6, the spacing means translates along a transversal axis of the housing.
Mazzarolo is the closest prior art.
Mazzarolo does not disclose how the spacing means interacts with the support member of the base or the housing, such that it can be determined if the couplings are hinged, translating, fixed, or another type of coupling.
Mazzarolo would not be modifiable to yield a hinged or translatable spacing means without employing impermissible hindsight reasoning. Therefore, claims 5-6 are allowable over Mazzarolo.
Other references such as Ruscigno (US 4161797 A) and Moon (US 9879950 B2) have spacing means/ levers with similar structure to Applicant’s (Ruscigno 37 and Moon 200); however, these spacing means operate to allow the user to deploy the inflating device and are not capable of keeping spaced apart the base and cover as required by claim 2.
Claims 11-13 depend from allowable claims 5-6.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Detection means in claims 1-2, 18-22, 24, and 25, which the specification defines as “spacing means” on page 8 lines 3-4, “detectors” on page 13 lines 1-2, or “two levers 39 positioned along the side of the holding seat” on page 17 lines 1-2.
Spacing means in claims 2-6, 8-9, 11-13, which the specification defines as “at least one lever 39” on page 10 or “at least one stem 70 and at least one rod 74 coupled to each other” on page 11.
Connecting means in claims 17-18 which the specification defines as “a connecting cap 20” on page 6.
Sensing means in claim 23 which the specification defines as “a magnet 62.”
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 2-15 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 2-15 are indefinite because it cannot be determined the relationship between the detection means (claims 1-2, 18-22, 24, and 25), spacing means (claims 2-6, 8-9, 11-13), and lever (claims 8-10). As claimed, the detection means, spacing means, and lever appear to be three different elements. However, according to the disclosure, the detection means is a spacing means and the spacing means is a lever, which suggests that the detection means, spacing means, and lever are three different names for a single element.
Clarification is requested.
The claims are examined as best understood.
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) 1-4, 8, 16-21, and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mazzarolo (WO 2021089439 A1).
As to claim 1, Mazzarolo discloses a wearable protection device (“Wearable protection device e.g. garment, such as jacket or suit, has safety device designed to signal unsafe state of wearable protection device if inflator device is decoupled or not properly coupled to inflatable unit,” title) comprising:
at least one inflatable member designed to move between a rest condition in a deflated status and an operating condition in an inflated status (12, see abstract);
at least one inflator device designed to be coupled to the at least one inflatable member for inflating the at least one inflatable member once the at least one inflator device is triggered (14, see abstract); and
a housing designed for accommodating the at least one inflator device (29);
wherein said housing comprises detection means suitable for moving between a first configuration and a second configuration (safety sensor described on the last two lines of page 10), the insertion of the at least one inflator device inside a holding seat of the housing (46) causing the moving of the detection means from the first configuration to the second configuration (the configurations are “on” and “off;” page 11 discloses “When the inflator device 14 is removed from its holding seat 46, such a sensor is able to switch off the control unit or to keep the control unit switched off, until an inflator device is properly positioned inside the holding seat 46.”).
As to claim 2, as best understood, Mazzarolo discloses the wearable protection device according to claim 1, characterized in that the detection means comprise spacing means (fastening means 58 and 60 in combination with safety device 40) and the housing comprises a base and a cover portion designed to be fastened to each other (FIG 7 shows a lower portion that corresponds to the claimed base and an upper portion that corresponds to the claimed cover portion, and FIG 8 shows the base and cover portion fastened to each other), in the first configuration said spacing means being adapted to keep spaced apart the base and the cover portion and in the second configuration said spacing means being suitable for permitting the cover portion to lay against the base (page 11 discloses, “First and second fastening means 58, 60 are designed to be matched to each other only if the safety device 40 permits the insertion of the inflator device 14 inside the holding seat 46.”).
As to claim 3, Mazzarolo discloses the wearable protection device according to claim 2, characterized in that said spacing means are arranged between the base and the cover portion of the housing (FIG 7).
As to claim 4, Mazzarolo discloses the wearable protection device according to claim 2, characterized in that the spacing means are fastened to the base so as to be arranged inside a storage cavity defined by the base (FIG 7 shows 40 and 60 fastened to the base inside a storage cavity defined by the base, the border around the peripheral edge defining the storage cavity).
As to claim 8, as best understood, Mazzarolo discloses the wearable protection device according to claim 2, characterized in that said spacing means comprise at least one lever (without there being any other structure for the claimed lever, 40 is broadly considered to be a lever).
As to claim 9, as best understood, Mazzarolo discloses the wearable protection device according to claim 2, characterized in that said spacing means comprise at least one lever (without there being any other structure for the claimed lever, 40 is broadly considered to be a lever); said at least one lever being a L-shaped lever having a first arm, engageable with the base of the housing, and a second arm engageable with said at least one inflator device (FIG 6 shows one arm at 46 capable of engaging with the base and another arm at 48 capable of engaging with the inflator device 14).
As to claim 10, Mazzarolo discloses the wearable protection device according to claim 9, characterized in that, in the first configuration, the first arm abuts against a matching part provided at a bottom surface of the base (at 46, see FIGS 6-7), said matching part being arranged offset with respect to an articulation hole of the lever (the hole being between elements 48 as shown in FIG 6).
As to claim 16, Mazzarolo discloses the wearable protection device according to claim 1, characterized in that the holding seat is defined by one or more abutment surfaces defining a seat complementary to the shape of the at least one inflator device (FIG 7 shows 46 is defined by surfaces defining a seat complementary to the shape of 14).
As to claim 17, Mazzarolo discloses the wearable protection device according to claim 1, characterized in that the holding seat is further adapted to house connecting means by means of which said at least one inflator device is coupled to the at least one inflatable member (46 is capable of housing connecting means such as fastening means 58 and 60).
As to claim 18, Mazzarolo discloses the wearable protection device according to claim 17, characterized in that the insertion of the at least one inflator device with said connecting means inside the holding seat of the housing causes the moving of the detection means from the first configuration to the second configuration (the configurations are “on” and “off;” page 11 discloses “When the inflator device 14 is removed from its holding seat 46, such a sensor is able to switch off the control unit or to keep the control unit switched off, until an inflator device is properly positioned inside the holding seat 46.”).
As to claim 19, Mazzarolo discloses the wearable protection device according to claim 1, characterized in that the detection means comprises one or more detectors adapted to electrically signal to a further element of the wearable protection device when said detectors move from the first configuration to the second configuration (safety sensor described on the last two lines of page 10; the configurations are “on” and “off;” page 11 discloses “When the inflator device 14 is removed from its holding seat 46, such a sensor is able to switch off the control unit or to keep the control unit switched off, until an inflator device is properly positioned inside the holding seat 46.”).
As to claim 20, Mazzarolo discloses the wearable protection device according to claim 19, characterized by comprising a control unit designed to process data detected by one or more sensor and to send a triggering signal to said at least one inflator device if a danger situation is identified (30, see page 11 which discloses a situation where 14 is inserted inside 46, and a situation where 14 is not inserted inside 46 corresponds to the claimed “danger situation,” and in this situation safety device 40 comprising sensor 42 switches off control unit 30), said control unit being programmed for being switched in a "on status" if the detectors are in their second configuration, in the "on status" the control unit being able to send a triggering signal to said at least one inflator device (page 11 discloses, “When the inflator device 14 is removed from its holding seat 46, such a sensor is able to switch off the control unit or to keep the control unit switched off, until an inflator device is properly positioned inside the holding seat 46.”).
As to claim 21, Mazzarolo discloses the wearable protection device according to claim 1, characterized in that the housing comprises a plurality of detection means spaced apart from each other (page 11 discloses if the housing has space for two inflation sources, then two safety sensors should be provided).
As to claim 24, Mazzarolo discloses a method for safely activating an inflatable member of a wearable protection device (“Wearable protection device e.g. garment, such as jacket or suit, has safety device designed to signal unsafe state of wearable protection device if inflator device is decoupled or not properly coupled to inflatable unit,” title); said method comprising the following steps:
providing a wearable protection device (10) comprising:
(i) at least one inflatable member, suitable for moving between a rest condition in a deflated status and an operating condition in an inflated status (12);
ii) at least one inflator device designed to be coupled to the at least one inflatable member for inflating the at least one inflatable member once said at least one inflator device is triggered (14); and
(iii) a housing designed for accommodating said at least one inflator device (29);
checking if the at least one inflator device and the inflatable member are properly coupled (page 11 discloses, “A not properly fastening of the cover 56 to the holding seat 46 signals an unsafe state of the wearable protection device since the inflator device 14 is not properly coupled to the inflatable member 12.”); and
preventing the triggering of the at least one inflator device if a not proper coupling between the at least one inflator device and the inflatable member has been checked (page 12 discloses, “Advantageously, in case both safety devices 40 comprise a contact sensor 42 positioned on the cover 56 or on the seat 46, the control unit 30 will be switched off or it will be kept switched off, if one of the gas cartridges 14 is not properly inserted inside its holding seat 46, so as not to permit the correct positioning of the cover over the holding seat.”);
wherein the checking step is carried out by means of detection means provided in the housing and designed to detect if the at least one inflator device is present inside the housing (40 comprising sensor 42).
As to claim 25, Mazzarolo discloses the method according to claim 24, characterized by providing the wearable protection device with a control unit designed to process data detected by sensors and to send a triggering signal to said at least one inflator device when a danger situation is identified (30), the detection means being adapted to directly or indirectly signal to the control unit the presence of the at least one inflator device inside the housing (page 12 discloses, “Advantageously, in case both safety devices 40 comprise a contact sensor 42 positioned on the cover 56 or on the seat 46, the control unit 30 will be switched off or it will be kept switched off, if one of the gas cartridges 14 is not properly inserted inside its holding seat 46, so as not to permit the correct positioning of the cover over the holding seat.”).
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) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazzarolo (WO 2021089439 A1).
As to claim 22, Mazzarolo does not disclose the wearable protection device according to claim 21, characterized in that said plurality of detection means comprises detection means of different types.
Mazzarolo is silent as to whether the two detection means are the same or different.
However, with their being only two solutions – the two detection means are either the same or different – and both solutions would have a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide detection means of different types, for the purpose of detecting two different types of events.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazzarolo (WO 2021089439 A1) in view of Mazzarolo (US 20150173433 A1), hereinafter, “Mazzarolo 2.”
As to claim 23, Mazzarolo discloses the wearable protection device according to claim 2, characterized by comprising sensing means arranged on opposite facing surfaces of the base and the cover portion (42); said sensing means being designed to signal when the cover portion is positioned in proximity to the base (page 11 discloses, “The safety device 40 can comprise a safety or contact sensor 42, connected to the control unit 30, which can be positioned on a top edge of the holding seat 46 or on a bottom edge of the cover 56 (see figure 4). Such a sensor 42 is designed to switch on the control unit 30 once the cover 56 is properly fixed to the holding seat 46 and to switch off or to keep the control unit switched off when the cover 56 is removed from the seat.”), but does not expressly disclose the sensing means is a magnet, as required by the invocation of 112(f).
Mazzarolo 2 teaches a sensing means (para. 0107) comprising a magnet (18). Both sensing means operate in the same manner, which is detecting the proximity of two elements of the device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a magnet as taught by Mazzarolo 2, for the purpose of providing a known means for detecting the proximity of two elements of the device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SALLY HADEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6731. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 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.
SALLY HADEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3732
/SALLY HADEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732