DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-20 are being treated on the merits.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 13, "which field of vision" appears to read "which";
In claim 2, "on the one hand" and "on the other hand", generally used to compare two aspects, appear to be improper in the context of the apparatus claim, because "a part" and "a fastening system" as claimed are components of the device and do not constitute a comparison;
In claim 13, line 2, "and which" appears to read "which".
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "fastening system" in claims 2 and 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Specifically, the claim limitation "fastening system" has been interpreted as: a fastener for fastening a headband around a person's head, including a first part and a second part, the first and second parts being configured to releasably couple to each other (para. 0067).
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 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1, in line 5, recites the phrase "and comprising" after a comma, which renders the claim indefinite. The claim has previously set forth "[[a]] concentration aid device" and "said headband". It is unclear which item is being referred to. For examination purposes, the phrase has been construed to be "said headband comprising".
Claim 2 recites the limitation of a part having "a width" with two instances, which renders the claim indefinite. The term "width" is not defined in the claim. It is unclear which dimension of the part is considered as the "width". For examination purposes, the Examiner has interpreted that the "width" is a dimension of the part in a vertical direction when the headband is being worn.
Claims 2 and 4 recite the limitation "the two ends of the part". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Claim 2 has not defined how many ends the part has, and it is unclear which two ends are being referred to. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be two lateral ends of the part when the headband is being worn.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the fastening system securing the two ends of the part made from the flexible sheet is adjustable in length", which renders the claim indefinite. First, it is unclear which structure is adjustable in "length". The fastening system? The two ends? Or the part? Second, it is unclear which dimension is considered as the "length". Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the support strip has a thickness", which renders the claim indefinite. The term "thickness" is not defined in the claim. It is unclear which dimension of the support strip is considered as the "width". For examination purposes, the Examiner has interpreted that the "thickness" is a dimension of the support strip perpendicular to the person's forehead when the headband is being worn.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the lobes each have a width", which renders the claim indefinite. The term "width" is not defined in the claim. It is unclear which dimension of each of the lobes is considered as the "width". For examination purposes, the Examiner has interpreted that the "width" is a dimension of each of the lobes in a vertical direction when the headband is being worn.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the support strip has a thickness", which renders the claim indefinite. The term "thickness" is not defined in the claim. It is unclear which dimension of the support strip is considered as the "width". For examination purposes, the Examiner has interpreted that the "thickness" is a dimension of the support strip perpendicular to the person's forehead when the headband is being worn.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the lobes each have a width", which renders the claim indefinite. The term "width" is not defined in the claim. It is unclear which dimension of each of the lobes is considered as the "width". For examination purposes, the Examiner has interpreted that the "width" is a dimension of each of the lobes in a vertical direction when the headband is in use.
The remaining claims each depend from a rejected base claim and are likewise rejected.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objections and the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to clam 1, none of the prior art of record discloses, teaches or reasonably suggests the median recess intended to be placed in front of the eyes of the person, and the support strip configured to space the headband away from the forehead of the person, so that the support strip makes it possible, together with the median recess, to clear a forward field of vision, which is restricted laterally by the two lobes which form two blinders capable of laterally limiting the field of vision. Modifying any prior art of references to have the claimed features would be impermissible hindsight based upon Applicant's disclosure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional relevant references cited on attached PTO-892 form(s) can be used to formulate a rejection if necessary. Sugiyama (JPH 0990865 A) discloses a concentration aid in the form of a headband comprising two lobes to narrows left and right visual angles of both eyes. Abraham (US 2007/0109492 A1) discloses a concentration aid in the form of a headband comprising two blinders to narrows left and right visual angles of both eyes. Gondell (US 2,738,514 A), Wasson (US 4,394,782 A) and Lebherz (US 6,732,379 B2) each disclose a headband comprising a median recess intended to be placed in front of the eyes of the person and two lobes to narrows left and right visual angles of both eyes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIYING ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-3326. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am - 4:30 pm 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, KHOA HUYNH can be reached on (571)272-4888. 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.
/AIYING ZHAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights