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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of the Species Election claims 1-20 in the reply filed on 1/13/26 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that it would not be a burden to search and examine all species and claims. This is not found persuasive because as explained in the Restriction/Election Requirement mailed 5/15/26 the embodiments listed would present a search burden to the examiner; requiring the search of different subclasses, search queries and /or require prior art that is applicable to one species and not another. The restriction requires the applicant select an embodiment and focus the scope of the claims towards the elected embodiment now, and in the future. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments have not been found convincing. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
In the instant case there does not appear to be any means for language in the claims and/or language to be considered under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 AIA
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, 2, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dainese US 12012065 B2 (herein after Dainese).
Regarding claim 1, Dainese discloses wearable protection device (Abstract) comprising: an inflatable element (40) comprising a plurality of side-by-side segments (as seen in annotated Figures 1, 1A, 3, and 5) each extending along a respective extension trajectory (as seen in annotated Figures 1, 1A), wherein each of the side-by-side segments comprises at least one wall in sheet material delimiting an internal volume (as seen in annotated Figures 1, 1A, 3 and 5) and having a first and second portion facing each other (as seen in annotated Figures 1, 1A, 3 and 5), wherein each of the side-by-side segments (as seen in annotated Figures 1, 1A, 3 and 5) further comprises one or more peripheral engagement portions (5, Abstract, paragraph 0010, 0017), wherein the inflatable element (40) is configurable between: a deflated condition in which the first and second portions of at least one wall of each of the side-by-side segments (as seen in annotated Figures 1, 1A, 3 and 5), for a predominant portion of a surface extension (as seen in annotated Figures 1, 1A, 3 and 5), are close together and at least partially in contact with each other (as seen in annotated Figures 3 and 5), an inflated condition in which the first and second portions of the at least one wall of each of the side-by-side segments (as seen in annotated Figures 3 and 5), for a preponderant portion of its surface extension (as seen in annotated Figures 3 and 5), are spaced apart (as seen in annotated Figures 1, 1A, 3 and 5), wherein said at least one wall (as seen in annotated Figures 1, 1A, 3 and 5), in the inflated condition (as seen in annotated Figures 3 and 5), defines an internal volume greater than the internal volume defined by the same wall in the deflated condition (as seen in annotated Figures 3 and 5), a case (10, 110) defining a compartment in which the plurality of the side-by-side segments is housed (as seen in annotated Figures 1, 1A, 3 and 5), wherein the case comprises a first and a second cover in sheet material (paragraph 0003), at least partially opposite to each other (as seen in annotated Figures 1, 1A, 3 and 5), wherein each of the side-by-side segments is interposed between said first and second covers (paragraph 0003), wherein at least one peripheral engagement portion (5) of at least one of the side-by- side segments the inflatable element is fixed to (as seen in annotated Figures 3 and 5), or in proximity of, at least one of said first and second covers (paragraph 0003).
[AltContent: textbox (At least one peripheral engagement portion of at least one of the side-by- side segments the inflatable element is fixed to, or in proximity of, at least one of said first and second covers. )]
[AltContent: textbox (A case defining a compartment in which the plurality of the side-by-side segments is housed.)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (An inflated condition in which the first and second portions of the at least one wall of each of the side-by-side segments, for a preponderant portion of its surface extension, are spaced apart.)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A plurality of side-by-side segments each extending along a respective extension trajectory.)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (One or more peripheral engagement portions (5). )][AltContent: textbox (The case comprises a first and a second cover in sheet material, at least partially opposite to each other. )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (An inflatable element.)]
PNG
media_image1.png
556
515
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A deflated condition in which the first and second portions of at least one wall of each of the side-by-side segments.)]
[AltContent: textbox (Wherein each of the side-by-side segments is interposed between said first and second covers.)]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (At least one wall, in the inflated condition, defines an internal volume greater than the internal volume defined by the same wall in the deflated condition.)][AltContent: textbox (A predominant portion of a surface extension, are close together and at least partially in contact with each other. )]
PNG
media_image2.png
578
220
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Each of the side-by-side segments comprises at least one wall in sheet material delimiting an internal volume and having a first and second portion facing each other. )]
[AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
588
167
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Dainese discloses wherein the inflatable element (40) comprises at least two peripheral engagement portions (5) opposite to each other with respect to an internal volume of a respective segment of the side-by-side segments (paragraph 0008 and 0017), wherein said the respective segment is fixed (paragraph 0021, 0022 and 0023), at opposite peripheral engagement portions with respect to the internal volume of the respective segment (paragraph 0021, 0022 and 0023), to the first and second covers (paragraph 0021, 0022 and 0023).
Regarding claim 8, Dainese discloses wherein at least a peripheral portion of the first and second cover of the case is fixed to each other by sewing (paragraph 0021, 0022 and 0023), wherein each segment of the side-by-side segments of the inflatable element (paragraph 0008 and 0017, as seen in annotated Figures 1, 1A and 3 and 5) is sewn to the first and second cover (paragraph 0003, and paragraphs 0021, 0022 and 0023) spaced from the seams joining the first and second covers (as seen in annotated Figures 1, 1A and 3 and 5).
Regarding claim 9, Dainese discloses wherein the case comprises a plurality of auxiliary covers arranged in the compartment (paragraphs 0070, 0071 and 0073), wherein each auxiliary cover being made of sheet material (paragraph 0003) and defining a sub-chamber (as seen in annotated Figures 1, 1A, 3 and 5) in which at least one segment of the side-by-side segments of the inflatable element is housed (Abstract, paragraphs 008 and 0010), wherein each auxiliary cover is fixed to at least one of: at least a peripheral engagement portion of the segment housed in the auxiliary cover (Abstract, paragraphs 0008 and 0017, 0021, 0022 and 0023), the first cover of the case (10, 110, paragraph 0003, 0070, 0071, 0073), or the second cover of the case (10, 110, paragraph 0003, 0070, 0071, 0073).
Regarding claim 10, Dainese discloses wherein at least 70% of each of the side-by-side segments is contained within the sub-chamber of a respective auxiliary cover (paragraph 0070, 0071 and 0073).
Regarding claim 12, Dainese discloses a wearable protection device (Abstract) comprising: an inflatable element (40) comprising a plurality of side-by-side segments (as seen in annotated Figures 1, 1A, 3 and 5) each extending along a respective extension trajectory (as seen in annotated Figures 1, 1A, 3 and 5), wherein each of the side-by-side segments (as seen in annotated Figures 1, 1A, 3 and 5) includes at least one wall in sheet material delimiting an internal volume (as seen in annotated Figures 1, 1A, 3 and 5) and having a first and second portion facing each other (as seen in annotated Figures 1, 1A, 3 and 5), wherein the inflatable element (40) is configurable between: a deflated condition in which the first and second portions of at least one wall of each of the side-by-side segments (as seen in annotated Figures 3 and 5), for a preponderant part of its surface extension (as seen in annotated Figures 3 and 5), are close together and at least partially in contact with each other (as seen in annotated Figures 3 and 5), an inflated condition in which the first and second portions of the at least one wall of each of the side-by-side segments (as seen in annotated Figures 3 and 5), for a preponderant portion of its surface extension (as seen in annotated Figures 3 and 5), are spaced apart (as seen in annotated Figures 3 and 5), wherein said at least one wall (as seen in annotated Figures 3 and 5), in the inflated condition (as seen in annotated Figures 3 and 5), defines an internal volume greater than the internal volume defined by the same wall in the deflated condition (as seen in annotated Figures 3 and 5), a case (10, 110) defining a compartment (as seen in annotated Figures 1, 1A, 3 and 5), in which the plurality of the side-by-side segments is housed (as seen in annotated Figures 1, 1A, 3 and 5), wherein the case (10, 110) comprises a first and a second cover (paragraph 0003) in sheet material (paragraph 0003), at least partially opposite to each other (as seen in annotated Figures 1, 1A, 3 and 5), wherein each of the side-by-side segments (as seen in annotated Figures 1, 1A, 3 and 5), is interposed between said first and second covers (paragraph 0003), wherein two immediately adjacent segments of the side-by-side segments in cooperation with at least one of the first or second cover (as seen in annotated Figures 1, 1A, 3 and 5), in the inflated condition (as seen in annotated Figure 3), and in a cross-section orthogonal to the extension trajectory of at least one of said segments - delimit at least one empty zone.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (An inflated condition in which the first and second portions of the at least one wall of each of the side-by-side segments, for a preponderant portion of its surface extension, are spaced apart, wherein said at least one wall, in the inflated condition, defines an internal volume greater than the internal volume defined by the same wall in the deflated condition.)][AltContent: textbox (An internal volume and having a first and second portion facing each other, wherein the inflatable element is configurable between: a deflated condition in which the first and second portions of at least one wall of each of the side-by-side segments, for a preponderant part of its surface extension, are close together and at least partially in contact with each other.)]
PNG
media_image2.png
578
220
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image4.png
760
227
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Dainese discloses wherein the empty zone extends along at least 80% of the total longitudinal extension of the side-by-side segments defined along the respective extension trajectories (paragraph 0070, 0071 and 0073).
[AltContent: textbox (First empty zone.)]Regarding claim 15, Dainese discloses, wherein the at least one empty zone (as seen in annotated Figure 8) includes: a first empty zone - delimited between two immediately adjacent segments of the side-by-side segments (as seen in annotated Figure 8) and the first cover (18, 118), and a second empty zone delimited between two immediately adjacent segments of the side-by-side segments (as seen in annotated Figure 8) and the second cover (19, 119).
[AltContent: textbox (Second empty zone.)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image5.png
702
337
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Dainese discloses wherein the at least one empty zone, in cross-section, being substantially triangular in shape (as seen in annotated Figure 9).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Wherein the at least one empty zone, in cross-section, being substantially triangular in shape.)]
PNG
media_image6.png
755
502
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Dainese discloses wherein each segment of the side-by-side segments further comprises one or more peripheral engagement portions (5), wherein a peripheral edge of each segment of the side-by-side segment (40) has a first and second tract opposite to each other with respect to the internal volume defined by the segment (as seen in annotated Figures 1 and 1A) and joined at respective end portions by at least one connection tract (paragraphs 0008, 0017, 0021, 0022 and 0023), wherein the first and second tracts of the peripheral edge develop substantially along the extension trajectory of the segment (as seen in annotated Figures 1 and 1A, 3 and 5, paragraphs 0021, 0022 and 0023), and wherein each of the side-by-side segments is sewn to the first and second cover at the first and second tract of the peripheral edge (paragraphs 0021, 0022 and 0023).
Regarding claim 19, Dainese discloses wherein the inflatable element is made of deformable material (paragraph 0008), wherein the wall of the inflatable element has a gas impermeable structure (paragraph 0014), and wherein the case is at least partially made of perforated and gas-permeable material (Abstract – mesh being a gas permeable material).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 AIA
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 14, 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dainese US 12012065 B2 (herein after Dainese) in view of Potter US 6971193 B1 (herein after Potter).
Regarding claim 3, the wearable protection device of Dainese discloses all the limitations of claim 3 except Dainese do not disclose at least one wall of each segment comprises a first wall and a second wall in sheet material, wherein the first wall has a respective central zone defining said first portion of the at least one wall of the inflatable element, wherein the second wall has a respective central zone, which defines said second portion of the at least one wall of the inflatable element, wherein the first and second walls of each segment are engaged with each other at a peripheral edge to define the peripheral engagement portion of the inflatable element.
Potter teaches at least one wall of each segment comprises a first wall (as seen in annotated Figure 14 and 15) and a second wall (as seen in annotated Figure 14 and 15) in sheet material (as seen in annotated Figure 14 and 15), wherein the first wall has a respective central zone (as seen in annotated Figure 14 and 15) defining said first portion of the at least one wall of the inflatable element (as seen in annotated Figure 14 and 15), wherein the second wall has a respective central zone (as seen in annotated Figure 14 and 15), which defines said second portion of the at least one wall of the inflatable element (as seen in annotated Figure 14 and 15), wherein the first and second walls of each segment are engaged with each other at a peripheral edge (as seen in annotated Figure 14 and 15) to define the peripheral engagement portion of the inflatable element (as seen in annotated Figure 14 and 15).
[AltContent: textbox (The first and second walls of each segment are engaged with each other at a peripheral edge to define the peripheral engagement portion of the inflatable element.)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First wall.)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (The first wall has a respective central zone defining said first portion of the at least one wall of the inflatable element.)][AltContent: textbox (Second wall.)]
PNG
media_image7.png
251
377
media_image7.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (The second wall has a respective central zone, which defines said second portion of the at least one wall of the inflatable element.)]
Dainese and Potter are analogous art to the claimed invention in that it relates to devices with inflatable segments.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the invention to have modified the wearable protection device of Dainese by constructing at least one wall of each segment comprising a first wall and a second wall in sheet material, wherein the first wall has a respective central zone defining said first portion of the at least one wall of the inflatable element, wherein the second wall has a respective central zone, which defines said second portion of the at least one wall of the inflatable element, wherein the first and second walls of each segment are engaged with each other at a peripheral edge to define the peripheral engagement portion of the inflatable element as taught by Potter, in order to connect the segment portions during inflation and deflation of the device. The modification would be a simple modification to hold the portions together and control the movement of the gas and prevent gas from leaving the portions unintentionally.
Regarding claim 4, the modified wearable protection device of the combined references discloses wherein each segment of the side-by-side segments is fixed (paragraph 0008 and 0017, as seen in annotated Figures 1, 1A and 3 and 5 of Dainese), at peripheral edge portions (5 of Dainese) positioned opposite each other with respect to an internal volume of the side-by-side segment (as seen in annotated Figures 1, 1A and 3 and 5 of Dainese), to the first and second covers (paragraph 0021, 0022 and 0023 of Dainese).
Regarding claim 5, the modified wearable protection device of the combined references discloses wherein the peripheral edge of each segment of the side-by-side segment comprises a first tract (as seen in annotated Figures 1, 1A and 3 and 5 of Dainese) and a second tract (as seen in annotated Figures 1, 1A and 3 and 5 of Dainese) opposite each other and joined at respective end portions by at least one connection tract (as seen in annotated Figures 1, 1A and 3 and 5 of Dainese), wherein the first and second tracts of the peripheral edge extend substantially along the extension trajectory of the respective segment (paragraph 0008 and 0017, as seen in annotated Figures 1, 1A and 3 and 5 of Dainese), wherein each of the side-by-side segment is fixed to the first and second cover at the first and second tract of the peripheral edge (paragraph 0021, 0022 and 0023 of Dainese).
Regarding claim 6, the modified wearable protection device of the combined references discloses wherein each of the side-by-side segments is sewn to the first and second covers (paragraphs 0021, 0022 and 0023 of Dainese) exclusively at least one of said peripheral engagement portions (5 of Dainese).
Regarding claim 7, while the wearable protection device of Dainese discloses all the limitations of claim 7 except Dainese and further discloses wherein each segment of the side-by-side segments is fixed by a seam to: the first cover at the first tract of the peripheral edge along at least 70% of the total longitudinal extension of said first tract, substantially defined along the extension trajectory of the segment, and the second cover at the second tract of the peripheral edge along at least 70% of the total longitudinal extension of said second tract, substantially defined along the extension trajectory of the segment (paragraphs 0008, 0017, 0021, 0022 and 0023 of Dainese). Dainese does not disclose each segment is fixed along at least 70% of the first and second extension trajectory of the segment.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the invention to have constructed the wearable protection device of Dainese and Potter having the peripheral edge being fixed along at least 70% of the total longitudinal extension of said first tract, and the peripheral edge being fixed along at least 70% of the total longitudinal extension of said second tract, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges that would be discovered through routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, would be deemed through routine experimentation and as such is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Having the peripheral edge being fixed along at least 70% of the total longitudinal extension of said first tract, and the peripheral edge being fixed along at least 70% of the total longitudinal extension of said second tract would hold the segments within the case covering and position them as needed so they do not shift during wear.
Regarding claim 14, the wearable protection device of Dainese discloses all the limitations of claim 14 and further discloses wherein the empty zone, in the inflated condition and at a longitudinal centerline between two adjacent segments of the side-by-side segments delimits said empty zone, has a predetermined area (as seen in annotated Figures 8 and 9 of Dainese), however Dainese does not disclose wherein the ratio between said predetermined area and a cross- sectional area of one of segment of the side-by-side segments delimiting said empty zone in the inflated condition, in a cross-section along a plane orthogonal to the extension trajectory of the respective segment, at a longitudinal centerline zone of said segment is between 0.05 and 0.3.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the invention to have constructed the wearable protection device of Dainese and Potter having the ratio between said predetermined area and a cross- sectional area of one of segment of the side-by-side segments delimiting said empty zone in the inflated condition, in a cross-section along a plane orthogonal to the extension trajectory of the respective segment, at a longitudinal centerline zone of said segment is between 0.05 and 0.3, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges that would be discovered through routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, would be deemed through routine experimentation and as such is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Having the ratio between said predetermined area and a cross- sectional area of one of segment of the side-by-side segments delimiting said empty zone in the inflated condition, in a cross-section along a plane orthogonal to the extension trajectory of the respective segment, at a longitudinal centerline zone of said segment is between 0.05 and 0.3 would ensure the wearable device covered the wearer properly and safely in the necessary areas but also was flexible and pliable for comfortable use during wear.
Regarding claim 18, the wearable protection device of Dainese discloses all the limitations of claim 18 and further discloses two first tracts of two distinct peripheral edges of two immediately side-by-side segments of the inflatable element, in the inflated condition of said side-by-side segments, are placed at a predetermined distance, wherein two second tracts of two distinct peripheral edges of two immediately side-by-side segments of the inflatable element, in the inflated condition of said side-by-side segments, are placed at a predetermined distance (as seen in annotated Figures 1, 1A, 3, 5, 8 and 9 of Dainese), however Dainese does not disclose wherein the ratio between a minimum distance and the predetermined distance between two first tracts of two distinct peripheral edges of two immediately adjacent segments of the side-by-side segments of the inflatable element in the inflated condition of said adjacent segments, is equal to or greater than 1, and wherein the ratio between said minimum distance and the predetermined distance between two second tracts of two distinct peripheral edges of two immediately adjacent segments of the inflatable element, in the inflated condition of said adjacent segments, is equal to or greater than 1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the invention to have constructed the wearable protection device of Dainese and Potter having the ratio between a minimum distance and the predetermined distance between two first tracts of two distinct peripheral edges of two immediately adjacent segments of the side-by-side segments of the inflatable element in the inflated condition of said adjacent segments, is equal to or greater than 1, and wherein the ratio between said minimum distance and the predetermined distance between two second tracts of two distinct peripheral edges of two immediately adjacent segments of the inflatable element, in the inflated condition of said adjacent segments, is equal to or greater than 1, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges that would be discovered through routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, would be deemed through routine experimentation and as such is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Having the ratio between a minimum distance and the predetermined distance between two first tracts of two distinct peripheral edges of two immediately adjacent segments of the side-by-side segments of the inflatable element in the inflated condition of said adjacent segments, is equal to or greater than 1, and wherein the ratio between said minimum distance and the predetermined distance between two second tracts of two distinct peripheral edges of two immediately adjacent segments of the inflatable element, in the inflated condition of said adjacent segments, is equal to or greater than 1 would allow the segments to evenly inflate and be proportionate in size and dimension.
Regarding claim 20, the wearable protection device of Dainese discloses all the limitations of claim 20 and further discloses wherein the first and second covers of the case, in the deflated condition of the inflatable element and in an area where said side-by-side segments are fixed to the case, are spaced from each other up to a maximum distance, wherein said first and second covers, in the inflated condition of the inflatable element and in the area where said side-by-side segments are fixed to the case, are arranged at an operating distance less than said maximum distance (as seen in annotated Figures 1, 1A, 3, 5, 8 and 9 of Dainese), however, Dainese does not disclose wherein the ratio between the maximum distance and the operating distance between the first and second cover is equal to or greater than 1.1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the invention to have constructed the wearable protection device of Dainese and Potter the ratio between the maximum distance and the operating distance between the first and second cover is equal to or greater than 1.1, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges that would be discovered through routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, would be deemed through routine experimentation and as such is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Having the ratio between the maximum distance and the operating distance between the first and second cover is equal to or greater than 1.1 would ensure the segments are held securely in position within the case without slippage.
Claim 11, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dainese US 12012065 B2 (herein after Dainese) in view of Mazzarolo US 20210329986 A1 (herein after Mazzarolo).
Regarding claim 11, the wearable protection device of Dainese disclose all the limitations of claim 11 and further discloses an activator configured to activate an actuator to allow the inflatable element to pass from the deflated to the inflated condition (15, paragraphs 0082, 0085, 0086 and 0087 of Dainese), however Dainese does not disclose a control unit operatively connected to the activator, wherein the control unit is configured to send a command signal to the activator for the activation of the actuator, and at least one sensor configured to emit a signal representative of a user condition, wherein the control unit is configured to: receive the signal from the sensor, compare the received signal with at least one threshold value of a control parameter, determine, based on the comparison, the presence of an accident condition for the user and, in response to the accident condition being determined, send the command signal to the activator to detect an occurrence of the accident condition.
Mazzarolo teaches a control unit (paragraph 0006, 0067) operatively connected to the activator (paragraph 0037, 0038, 0039 and 0040), wherein the control unit is configured to send a command signal to the activator for the activation of the actuator (paragraph 0042, 0045 and 0046), and at least one sensor (paragraph 0006, 0007, 0037 and 0038) configured to emit a signal representative of a user condition (paragraph 0006, 0007, 0037 and 0038), wherein the control unit is configured to: receive the signal from the sensor (paragraph 0007), compare the received signal with at least one threshold value of a control parameter (Abstract, paragraphs 0003, 0005, 0006), determine, based on the comparison, the presence of an accident condition for the user (paragraph 0005, 0006 and 0039) and, in response to the accident condition being determined, send the command signal to the activator to detect an occurrence of the accident condition (paragraph 0005, 0006 and 0039).
Mazzarolo is analogous art to the claimed invention in that it relates to inflatable protective devices.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the invention to have modified the wearable protective device of Dainese by constructing a control unit operatively connected to the activator, wherein the control unit is configured to send a command signal to the activator for the activation of the actuator, and at least one sensor configured to emit a signal representative of a user condition, wherein the control unit is configured to: receive the signal from the sensor, compare the received signal with at least one threshold value of a control parameter, determine, based on the comparison, the presence of an accident condition for the user and, in response to the accident condition being determined, send the command signal to the activator to detect an occurrence of the accident condition as taught by Mazzarolo, in order to activate the inflation of the garment in the event of a fall. The modification would be a simple modification to determine whether an accident is occurring or there is a need to activate the protective device and protect the wearer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE M FERREIRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5916, fax number (571) 270-6916. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 9:00 am- 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, ALISSA J. TOMPKINS, 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Catherine M. Ferreira/
Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/ALISSA J TOMPKINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights