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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the drawings improperly contain black and white photographs (see Figs. 1-4 and 7-10). It is noted that black and white photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. In order photographs to properly replace line drawings, the photographs or photomicrographs must show the invention more clearly than they can be done by India ink drawings and otherwise comply with the rules concerning such drawings.
Photographs are only acceptable as drawings to illustrate inventions which are incapable of being accurately or adequately depicted by India ink drawings, e.g., electrophoresis gels, blots, (e.g., immunological, western, Southern, and northern), autoradiographs, cell cultures (stained and unstained), histological tissue cross sections (stained and unstained), animals, plants, in vivo imaging, thin layer chromatography plates, crystalline structures, metallurgical microstructures, textile fabrics, grain structures and, in a design patent application, ornamental effects. See MPEP 608.02.
The Examiner respectfully notes that the instant invention does not appear to fall under the above category, is clearly capable of being accurately or adequately depicted by India ink drawings, and would also be more clearly depicted by India ink drawings.
Furthermore, the drawings contain improper use of shading (see Figs. 1-10). It is noted that the use of shading in views is only encouraged if it aids in understanding the invention and if it does not reduce legibility. Shading is used to indicate the surface or shape of spherical, cylindrical, and conical elements of an object. Flat parts may also be lightly shaded. Such shading is preferred in the case of parts shown in perspective, but not for cross sections. Spaced lines for shading are preferred. These lines must be thin, as few in number as practicable, and they must contrast with the rest of the drawings. As a substitute for shading, heavy lines on the shade side of objects can be used except where they superimpose on each other or obscure reference characters. Light should come from the upper left corner at an angle of 45°. Surface delineations should preferably be shown by proper shading. Solid black shading areas are not permitted, except when used to represent bar graphs or color. See MPEP R 1.84.
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.
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 following title is suggested: “Knee or Elbow Protector Having Cloth Laminate.”
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a cloth laminate in which a plurality of cloth-like bodies formed from filament bodies are made of thermoplastic resin are laminated” should read “a cloth laminate comprising a plurality of cloth-like bodies laminated together, wherein each cloth-like body is formed from filament bodies [[are]] made of thermoplastic resin
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a back surface side” (line 7) should read “[[a]] the back surface side” to maintain consistent antecedent basis within the claims.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein the cloth-like body is formed of the filament bodies that are woven, knitted, or intersected by each other” should read “wherein s with each other, knitted with each other, or intersected by each other” to enhance clarity.
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 4-5, 7, and 8 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 4 recites the limitation “wherein the protector member (1) includes an upper bending part (11) on an upper side in a longitudinal direction of the dish-like recessed part (10), and a lower bending part (12) on a lower side in the longitudinal direction of the dish-like recessed part (10), the upper bending part (11) bends toward a back surface side from the dish-like recessed part (10) toward the upper side, and the lower bending part (12) bends toward the back surface side from the dish-like recessed part (10) toward the lower side.” The limitation is indefinite, as it is unclear if the recited upper and lower bending parts merely describe a curved, three-dimensional shape of the protector member, or if the upper and lower bending parts describe an articulated (e.g., hinged) structure of the protector member. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the limitation as follows: “wherein the protector member (1) includes an upper part (11) on an upper side in a longitudinal direction of the dish-like recessed part (10), and a lower part (12) on a lower side in the longitudinal direction of the dish-like recessed part (10), wherein the protector member has a curved shape such that the upper part (11) is angled toward a back surface side from the dish-like recessed part (10) toward the upper side, and the lower part (12) is angled toward the back surface side from the dish-like recessed part (10) toward the lower side.”
Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein a thickness of the protector member (1) is 0.4mm to 1.8mm.” The limitation is indefinite, as it is unclear if the recited thickness is a thickness range, or if the protector member has a tapered/varied thickness (e.g., 0.4mm at the thinnest portion of the protector member, and 1.8mm at the thickest portion of the protector member). For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the limitation as follows: “wherein a thickness of the protector member (1) is in a range between 0.4mm to 1.8mm.”
Claim 7 recites the limitation “both surfaces of a core material.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. The Examiner suggests the following amendments to claim 7, in accordance with paragraph 0017 of the specification, to enhance clarity and to provide proper antecedent basis for the core material surfaces: “wherein the filament body made of thermoplastic resin has a core-sheath structure comprising a core material made of a high melting point thermoplastic resin component, and an outer layer made of a low melting point thermoplastic resin component having a melting point lower than a melting point of the core material, wherein the core material has two opposing surfaces, and the core material the outer layer
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein an adhesive layer in which a low melting point thermoplastic resin component contains a high melting point thermoplastic resin component is disposed between the cloth-like bodies in the cloth laminate.” The limitation is indefinite, as it is unclear, further additional clarification within the claim, how a low melting point thermoplastic resin component “contains” a high melting point thermoplastic resin component. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the limitation as follows, in accordance with at least paragraph 0065 of the specification: “wherein an adhesive layer is disposed between the cloth-like bodies in the cloth laminate, wherein the adhesive layer containsand a high melting point thermoplastic resin
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 1-3, 6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sgro (US Patent No. 6,070,273).
Regarding claim 1, Sgro discloses a protector (see Figs. 7 and column 6, line 40 - line 7, line 56; note that Sgro discloses wherein the protector structure may be integrated within an elbow protector 108 or knee protector 110 as seen in Figs. 16-17) comprising:
a protector member (main body/shell of the protector) comprising a cloth laminate (82, 84, 86; the Examiner notes that claim 1 does not prohibit the cloth laminate from including additional, non-cloth layers such as foam layer 84) in which a plurality of cloth-like bodies (82, 86) formed from filament bodies made of thermoplastic resin are laminated (see Fig. 7 and column 6, line 40 - line 7, line 56; Sgro discloses wherein scrim layer 82 may be formed of polyester or polyethene fibers, and wherein woven fabric layer 86 may be formed of a synthetic material such as polyester), the protector member including a dish-like recessed part disposed on a back surface side (see Figs. 6-7 and column 6, lines 14-54; the protector member, when integrated within a garment/device, forms a dish-like recessed part configured to receive central pad portion 80);
a shock absorbing member (80) fixed to the dish-like recessed part of the protector member (see Figs. 6-7 and column 6, line 14 - line 7, line 56); and
a wrapping member (straps of elbow/knee protector 108) disposed on the protector member and/or the shock absorbing member (see at least Fig. 16).
Regarding claim 2, Sgro further discloses wherein the protector is for protecting a movable part (e.g., a knee or elbow, see Figs. 16-17 and column 7, lines 33-56).
Regarding claim 3, Sgro further discloses wherein the movable part is a knee or an elbow (see Figs. 16-17 and column 7, lines 33-56).
Regarding claim 6, Sgro further discloses wherein the cloth-like body is formed of the filament bodies (filaments forming 82, 86) that are woven, knitted, or intersected by each other (see Fig. 7 and column 6, line 40 – column 7, line 10; scrim layer 82 has a woven and/or intersected construction, and fabric layer 86 is a woven fabric layer).
Regarding claim 10, Sgro further discloses wherein the cloth laminate (82, 84, 86) is formed by integrating a plurality of laminated cloth-like bodies by heating and pressure bonding (see column 6, line 40 - line 7, line 56).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6, 9, and 10 (regarding claim 4, as best as can be understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noble (US PG Pub 2013/0145514) in view of Legenstein (US Patent No. 5,870,774), further in view of Sgro.
Regarding claim 1, Noble discloses a protector (100) comprising:
a protector member (105);
a shock absorbing member (120) fixed to a back surface side of the protector member (see at least Fig. 1 and paragraph 0018); and
a wrapping member (straps as seen in dotted outline of Fig. 1, see also description of paragraph 0018) disposed on the protector member and/or the shock absorbing member (see Fig. 1).
Noble depicts wherein the protector member (105) has curved side profile (see at least Fig. 4) but fails to explicitly show/disclose a dish-like recessed part disposed on a back surface side of the protector member.
However, Legenstein teaches a knee protector (100) comprising an outer shell (20) and a shock absorbing cushion (22; see Figs. 1-3 and column 3, line 21-column 4, line 37), wherein each of the outer shell and the shock absorbing cushion comprises a dish-like recessed part disposed on a back surface thereof (see Fig. 3 and column 3, line 56 – column 4, line 4), so as to accommodate the wearer’s knee during use (see column 3, line 56 – column 4, line 4 and at least claim 8).
Therefore, based on Legenstein’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have specifically provided a dish-like recessed part disposed on a back surface side of Noble’s protector member, as doing so would accommodate the wearer’s knee during use of the protector.
Noble further discloses wherein the protector member may be formed of a thermoplastic resin (e.g., molded polyurethane, see paragraph 0019), but fails to disclose wherein the protector member is made of a cloth laminate in which a plurality of cloth-like bodies formed from filament bodies made of thermoplastic resin are laminated.
However, Sgro teaches a protector (see Figs. 7 and column 6, line 40 - line 7, line 56; note that Sgro discloses wherein the protector structure may be integrated within an elbow protector 108 or knee protector 110 as seen in Figs. 16-17) comprising: a protector member (main body/shell of the protector) and a shock absorbing member (80) fixed to the dish-like recessed part of the protector member (see Figs. 6-7 and column 6, line 14 - line 7, line 56); wherein the protector member comprises a cloth laminate (82, 84, 86; the Examiner notes that claim 1 does not prohibit the cloth laminate from including additional, non-cloth layers such as foam layer 84) in which a plurality of cloth-like bodies (82, 86) formed from filament bodies made of thermoplastic resin are laminated (see Fig. 7 and column 6, line 40 - line 7, line 56; Sgro discloses wherein scrim layer 82 may be formed of polyester or polyethene fibers, and wherein woven fabric layer 86 may be formed of a synthetic material such as polyester), so as to provide a flexible yet reinforced shell structure that is able to flex and bend without cracking, while also permitting shock absorption to spread the shock of a blow or an impact (see column 6, line 40 - line 7, line 56).
Therefore, based on Sgro’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Noble’s outer shell/protector member to be made of a cloth laminate in which a plurality of cloth-like bodies formed from filament bodies made of thermoplastic resin are laminated, as doing so would provide a flexible yet reinforced shell structure that is able to flex and bend without cracking, while also permitting shock absorption to spread the shock of a blow or an impact.
Regarding claim 2, the modified protector of Noble (i.e., Noble in view of Legenstein and Sgro) is further disclosed wherein the protector is for protecting a movable part (e.g., see at least Title and Abstract of Noble).
Regarding claim 3, the modified protector of Noble (i.e., Noble in view of Legenstein and Sgro) is further disclosed wherein the movable part is a knee or an elbow (see at least Title and Abstract of Noble).
Regarding claim 4, the modified protector of Noble (i.e., Noble in view of Legenstein and Sgro) is further disclosed wherein the protector member (105 of Noble) comprises an upper bending part (110 of Noble) on an upper side in a longitudinal direction of the dish-like recessed part (see Figs. 1 and 4-6 of Noble), and a lower bending part (150) on a lower side in the longitudinal direction of the dish-like recessed part (see Figs. 1 and 4-6 of Noble), wherein the upper bending part bends toward a back surface side from the dish-like recessed part toward the upper side (see Figs. 1 and 4-6 and paragraphs 0018-0026 of Noble), and the lower bending part bends toward the back surface side from the dish-like recessed part toward the lower side (see Figs. 1 and 4-6 and paragraphs 0018-0026 of Noble), wherein the upper bending part and the lower bending part are widened in a width direction as compared with the central portion (see at least Fig. 1-2 of Noble, each of the upper and lower bending parts 110, 150 includes a wider width at respective upper and lower extents of the protector member 105, compared to at least a narrowest portion of the central portion 130, 140), and parts of the upper bending part and the lower bending part close to both sides in the width direction bend toward the back surface side (see Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 0018-0026 of Noble).
Regarding claim 6, the modified protector of Noble (i.e., Noble in view of Legenstein and Sgro) is further disclosed wherein the cloth-like body is formed of the filament bodies (filaments forming 82, 86 of Sgro) that are woven, knitted, or intersected by each other (see Fig. 7 and column 6, line 40 – column 7, line 10 of Sgro; scrim layer 82 has a woven and/or intersected construction, and fabric layer 86 is a woven fabric layer).
Regarding claim 9, the modified protector of Noble (i.e., Noble in view of Legenstein and Sgro) is further disclosed wherein the shock absorbing member (120 of Noble) has a substantially elliptic shape when viewed from a front surface side of the protector member (105 of Noble; see at least Figs. 1-2 of Noble), and has a shape wider than the protector member at least in the width direction (see at least Fig. 1 of Noble).
Regarding claim 10, the modified protector of Noble (i.e., Noble in view of Legenstein and Sgro) is further disclosed wherein the cloth laminate (82, 84, 86 of Sgro) is formed by integrating a plurality of laminated cloth-like bodies by heating and pressure bonding (see column 6, line 40 - line 7, line 56 of Sgro).
Claim 4, as best as can be understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sgro, as applied to claim 3 above, in view of Noble.
Regarding claim 4, Sgro discloses the limitations of claim 3, as discussed above, and further depicts wherein the elbow or knee protector (108) may have a curved shape including an upper bending part on an upper side in a longitudinal direction of the dish-like recessed part (see annotated Fig. 16), and a lower bending part on a lower side in the longitudinal direction of the dish-like recessed part (see annotated Fig. 16), wherein the upper bending part bends towards a back surface side from the dish-like recessed part toward the upper side, and lower bending part bends toward the back surface side from the dish-like recessed part toward the lower side (see Fig. 16), but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the protector member includes the claimed upper and lower bending parts. Sgro also fails to disclose wherein the upper bending part and the lower bending part are widened in a width direction as compared with the dish-like recessed part, and the lower bending part has a wider shape than the upper bending part, and parts of the upper bending part and the lower bending part close to both sides in the width direction bend toward the back surface side.
PNG
media_image1.png
533
508
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Noble teaches a knee protector (100) comprising a protector member (105) and a shock absorbing member (120), wherein the protector member comprises an upper bending part (110), a central portion (130, 140), and a lower bending part (150), wherein the upper bending part bends toward a back surface side from the central portion toward the upper side (see Figs. 1 and 4-6 and paragraphs 0018-0026), and the lower bending part bends toward the back surface side from the central portion toward the lower side (see Figs. 1 and 4-6 and paragraphs 0018-0026), wherein the upper bending part and the lower bending part are widened in a width direction as compared with the central portion (see at least Fig. 1-2, each of the upper and lower bending parts 110, 150 includes a wider width at respective upper and lower extents of the protector member 105, compared to at least a narrowest portion of the central portion 130, 140), and parts of the upper bending part and the lower bending part close to both sides in the width direction bend toward the back surface side (see Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 0018-0026), so as to enhance comfort, flexibility, stability, and/or rocking ability of the knee protector (see paragraphs 0017 and 0020-0026).
Therefore, based on Noble’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Sgro’s knee/elbow protector such that the protector member would include the claimed upper and lower bending parts, and such that the protector member would be shaped wherein the upper bending part and the lower bending part are widened in a width direction as compared with the dish-like recessed part, and the lower bending part has a wider shape than the upper bending part, and parts of the upper bending part and the lower bending part close to both sides in the width direction bend toward the back surface side; as doing so would enhance comfort, flexibility, stability, and/or rocking ability of the knee protector.
Claim 5, as best as can be understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sgro, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Walton (US Patent No. 6,317,893).
Regarding claim 5, Sgro discloses the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, but fails to explicitly further disclose wherein a thickness of the protector member is 0.4 mm to 1.8 mm.
However, Walton teaches a protective garment (10) comprising an exterior protector member (12) formed from a cloth laminate in which a plurality of cloth-like bodies formed from filament bodies made of thermoplastic resin (e.g., nylon) are laminated together (see column 4, lines 6-32), wherein a thickness of the protector member is 0.4 mm to 1.8 mm (see column 4, lines 6-32; Walton teaches wherein the cloth laminate has a thickness range of 0.3mm to 1.25 mm), so as to provide a lightweight material that enables ease of movement while also providing adequate physical protection (see column 4, lines 6-32).
Therefore, based on Walton’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have specifically provided Sgro’s protector member with a thickness range from 0.4 mm to 1.8 mm, as doing so would provide a lightweight material that enables ease of movement while also providing adequate physical protection.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sgro, as applied to claim 1, in view of Onrot et al. (herein Onrot)(US Patent No. 8,732,869).
Regarding claim 11, Sgro discloses the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein fracture limit energy in a falling weight test is equal to or larger than 3.0 J.
However, Onrot teaches a joint protector (see at least Figs. 2-6 and Abstract) configured to attenuate an impact force resulting from an impact energy of at least 12.5 joules (see at least claim 1), so as to provide adequate protection to protect a wearer from a fracture resulting from a fall (see at least Abstract).
Therefore, based on Onrot’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have specifically configured Sgro’s protector to attenuate fracture limit energy in a falling weight test equal to or larger than 3.0 J, as doing so would provide adequate protection to protect a wearer from a fracture resulting from a fall.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8, as interpreted above, would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. For example, Panosian et al. (US PG Pub 2022/0354195) teaches a knee protector comprising an outer shell formed of a molded fabric lamination, and Teigen (US Patent No. 7,114,188) teaches a knee protector comprising an outer shell and an inner shock absorbing layer, wherein the outer shell comprises a dish-like recessed part on a back surface side of the outer shell.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOCELYN BRAVO whose telephone number is (571)270-0581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday, 12:00 pm - 5:00 pm.
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.
/JOCELYN BRAVO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
