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 figures 1-5 and 7-20 are not proper for reproduction based on improper shading and scanlines which renders the elements thereof unclear. Note that photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not permitted in utility and design patent applications unless if it is the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention (note 37 C.F.R. 1.84b). This is not the case for this application. 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.
Additionally, at least claims figures 1-3 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 Objections
Claims 7, 8, 11 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Within each of claims 7, 8, and 11, the applicant provides the dependency statement, “the donning assistance tool according to claim 1”. The examiner suggests removing this dependency statement from each of the claims and replacing it with the written-out claim language of claim 1 in order to avoid confusion to the independent nature of the respective claim.
Regarding claim 15, the applicant provides the dependency statement, “the donning preparation method according to claim 11” within the third line of the claim. The examiner suggests removing this dependency statement from the claim and replacing it with the written-out claim language of claim 11 in order to avoid confusion to the independent nature of the claim.
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 1-8, 11 and 15-17 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 1 recites the limitation "the ring-forming member" in line 6 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that “a plurality of ring-forming members” has been introduced within the third line of the claim, not a single ring-forming member. Did the applicant mean to recite, “each of the plurality of ring-forming members has” instead of “the ring-forming member has”? For the purpose of this Office Action (i.e., prior art), this is how the recitation will be interpreted. Note that each of claims 2-6 and 16 also recite “the ring-forming member” at least once.
Within line 7 of claim 1, the applicant recites that the ring-forming member has “a size ranging from 10mm to 30mm”. How does a single ring-forming member or each of the ring-forming members have a size “ranging” or varying from 10mm to 30mm? Does the applicant mean that each ring-forming member has a dimension within the range of 10mm to 30mm? For the purpose of this Office Action (i.e., prior art), this is how the recitation will be interpreted. Additionally, is the size/dimension representative of a diameter?
Within the last two lines of claim 1, the applicant recites that “the ring body ranges from 40mm to 130mm”. This recitation is indefinite because, as written, the applicant is stating that the ring body “ranges” or is varying from 40mm to 130mm when in “a non-stretched state”. If a size of the ring body is “ranging” or varying, the ring body would not be in a non-stretched state as claimed. Is the applicant trying to recite that an inner dimeter of the ring body, in a non-stretched state, is within the range of 40mm to 130mm? For the purpose of this Office Action (i.e., prior art), this is how the recitation will be interpreted.
The term “almost” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “almost” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The applicant recites that “a size of the though hole of the ring-forming member is almost equal to a size of an outer shape of the connecting body”. Note that it is not clear to what degree the size of the through hole and the size of the outer shape must be to be considered “almost equal” as claimed.
Regarding claim 7, the applicant recites, “a friction adjustment sheet, wherein friction of the friction adjustment sheet moved in a state in which the elastic garment is contacted is varied between a first direction and a second direction that is a direction opposite to the first direction”. Note that this recitation is very confusing. What are the properties of the sheet? Is the sheet being “moved” in the above recitation? Is the applicant trying to state that the friction adjustment sheet has different frictional properties when the garment is slid along a surface in one direction as compared to sliding along the surface in an opposing direction?
Regarding claim 16, the applicant recites, “the ring-forming member having a different size”. This recitation is indefinite because it is not clear to what the ring-forming member has a different size in relation thereto. Is the applicant trying to state that one of the plurality of ring-forming members has a size different than another of the ring-forming members? Or is the applicant stating that one dimension (i.e., size) of each ring-forming member is different than another dimension thereof?
All remaining claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being dependent from a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 6, 11 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MCDONNIEL (US 6,536,636 B1).
Regarding claim 1, MCDONNIEL discloses a donning assistance tool (12) for an elastic garment (40), the donning assistance tool comprising: a plurality of ring-forming members (26; 34) (Figures 1-4); and a connecting body (36) that is formed of a stretchable and contractible material (latex rubber tubing; col. 3, lines 5-14) and that connects the ring-forming members (26; 34) (Figures 1-4), wherein each of the plurality of ring-forming members (26; 34) has a diameter within a range of 10 mm to 30 mm (the desirable diameter is 3/4 of an inch which equals 19.05mm; col. 2, lines 51-53) (note that the desirable length is 1 inch which equals 25.4mm and thus also falls within the claimed range; col. 2, lines 51-53), and a through hole (38) into which the connecting body (36) is inserted (Figures 4-6), and regarding a size in a non-stretched state of a ring body formed by inserting the connecting body into the through hole (Fig. 6), a diameter in placing the ring body such that a virtual line inscribed in the ring-forming members constituting the ring body within a range of 40 mm to 130 mm (col. 2, lines 32-36 and col. 3, lines 15-20; to summarize, the ring body has an inside diameter that is about the same as the outside diameter of the mandrel which is 3.5 inches or 88.9mm).
Regarding claim 6, MCDONNIEL discloses wherein a size of the through hole (38) of the ring-forming member (26; 34) is almost equal (given the broadest reasonable interpretation) to a size of an outer shape of the connecting body (36) (Figures 4-6) (col. 3, lines 5-14).
Regarding claim 11, MCDONNIEL discloses a donning preparation method for an elastic garment (40), wherein the donning preparation method is performed at least using the donning assistance tool (12) as discussed above, and a tubular product (14), and the donning preparation method includes an elastic garment end portion attaching process in which an end portion (open end 44) of the elastic garment (40) is attached to the tubular product (14) while sliding from a first end portion side (20) to a second end portion side (24) of the tubular product (14) (Figures 8-9) (col. 3, lines 43-46), an elastic garment rolling up process in which the donning assistance tool (12) is placed on the end portion (44) of the elastic garment (40) attached to the tubular product (14), the donning assistance tool (12) is moved while rotating from the second end portion side (24) to the first end portion side (20) of the tubular product (14) along the tubular product (14), and the elastic garment (40) is rolled up around the donning assistance tool (12) (Figures 9-10) (col. 3, lines 49-56), an elastic garment re-attaching process in which the donning assistance tool (12) around which the elastic garment (40) is rolled up is slid from the first end portion side (20) to the second end portion side (24), and the elastic garment (40) is again attached to the tubular product (14) (col. 3, lines 56-59), and an attached elastic garment re-rolling up process in which the donning assistance tool (12) is moved while rotating from the second end portion side (24) to the first end portion side (20) of the tubular product (14) along the tubular product (14), and the elastic garment (40) again attached to the donning assistance tool (12) is rolled up (col. 3, lines 59-61) (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 15, MCDONNIEL discloses a donning method for an elastic garment (40) comprising: a donning process in which the elastic garment (40) is rolled up around the donning assistance tool (12) by the donning preparation method as discussed above is donned on a hand or a foot (Figures 11-12) (col. 4, lines 9-20).
Regarding claim 16, MCDONNIEL discloses the ring-forming member (26; 34) having a different size (note that the diameter is a different size than the length) (Figures 5and 6) (col. 2, lines 51-53).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MCDONNIEL (US 6,536,636 B1) in view of KOHSAI Co Ltd (JP 3015634 U).
MCDONNIE discloses a donning assistance tool (12) comprising a plurality of ring-forming members (26; 34), each with a through hole (38), as discussed above. However, MCDONNIE fails to disclose each ring-forming member comprising a cut portion reaching from the through hole to an outer edge of the ring-forming member. KOHSAI teaches a device comprising a ring-forming member (8) and a connecting body (11), wherein the ring-forming member (8) comprising a cut portion (13) reaching from a through hole (12) to an outer edge of the ring-forming member (8) in order to allow both a quick connection and disconnection with the connecting body (Figures 5-7). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have provided each of the plurality of ring-forming members of MCDONNIE with a cut portion as claimed, in light of the teachings of KOHSAI, in order to allow both a quick connection and disconnection with the connecting body. Note that the remainder of claim 2 and all of claim 3 is considered purely functional language containing no further limiting structure. Since the combination of MCDONNIE and KOHSAI teaches all the structure as claimed, the combination of MCDONNIE and KOHSAI is considered fully capable of providing the claimed function.
Claim(s) 4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MCDONNIEL (US 6,536,636 B1).
Regarding claim 4, MCDONNIEL discloses a donning assistance tool (12) comprising a plurality of ring-forming members (26; 34), each having a through hole (38), as discussed above. However, MCDONNIEL fails to disclose the through hole being off-centered. Providing a roller with an off-centered through hole and thus an off-centered rotational axis, is considered old and known in the art in order to create a cam-like movement pattern. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have provided each of the ring-forming members of MCDONNIEL with an off-centered through hole because such is considered old and known in the art in order to create a cam-like movement pattern.
Regarding claim 8, MCDONNIEL discloses a donning assistance kit (12, 14) for an elastic garment (40), the donning assistance kit comprising: the donning assistance tool (12) as discussed previously; and a cup (14). However, MCDONNIEL fails to disclose the cup having an exact diameter of 69mm or 90mm. Note that MCDONNIEL discloses the cup having a diameter of approximately 3.5 inches (88.9mm) which is very close to 90mm as claimed. It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have provided the cup of MCDONNIEL with a diameter of 90mm since it has been held that determination of a result-effective variable [through routine experimentation/optimization] only involves routine skill in the art and is therefore, not a patentably distinguishable feature (note MPEP 2144.05). Note that the diameter of the cup is directly related to the diameter of the donning assistance tool when loading the elastic garment/stocking thereon and thus the diameter of the cup is determining the size of the opening of the elastic garment to allow insertion of a user’s leg which come in many different shapes and sizes.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MCDONNIEL (US 6,536,636 B1) in view of GROL (NL 9000361 A).
MCDONNIEL discloses a donning assistance tool as discussed above. However, MCDONNIEL fails to disclose each of the plurality of ring-forming members being in a spherical shape. The use of rollers having a spherical shape is considered old and known in the art for simplicity purposes and in order to provide smooth rotation. Note that the ring-forming members (26; 34) of MCDONNIEL have a cylindrical shape as shown in figures 1-9. GROL discloses a donning assistance tool (20) comprising a plurality of ring-forming members (21) and a connecting body (22) (Fig. 2) wherein each of the plurality of ring-forming members can be spherical in shape (i.e., “round beads”) (page 7, lines 25-30). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have provided each of the plurality of ring-forming members of MCDONNIEL in a spherical shape, in light of the teachings of GROL and common knowledge in the art, for simplicity purposes and in order to provide smooth rotation.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MCDONNIEL (US 6,536,636 B1) in view of USNER (US 5,050,833).
MCDONNIEL discloses a donning assistance tool comprising a plurality of ring-forming members and a connecting body as discussed above. However, MCDONNIEL fails to disclose a part of the ring-forming members being not rotatable with respect to the connecting body. USNER discloses a plurality of roller members (roller bearings 3) wherein a part of the ring-forming members is not rotatable with respect to a connecting body (2) (inner ring of roller bearings 3 is welded 4’ to support 2) in order to prevent the sliding of the roller members along the connecting body (Figures 1-3). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have provided a part of the ring-forming members of MCDONNIEL to be not rotatable with respect to the connecting body, in light of the teachings of USNER, in order to prevent the sliding of the ring-forming members along the connecting body.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, 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, as cited on the attached PTO-892, and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note that UNSWORTH et al. (US 2005/0087573 A1) discloses a donning assistance tool (10) comprising a plurality of ring-forming members (10a) and a connecting body (10b) as shown in figures 8-10.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN E DURHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-8642. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 4:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Alissa J Tompkins can be reached at 571-272-3425. 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.
NED
/NATHAN E DURHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights