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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species 3 (Figures 6-9 and 13) in the reply filed on 6/15/2026 is acknowledged. In the reply, Applicant indicated claims 1-7 read on the elected species. However, upon further consideration of the claims, it appears that independent claim 4 (and claims 5-7 that depend therefrom) are directed to a non-elected species. Claim 4 defines “the flap portion can be worn independently of the tubular body portion” which is shown in Figure 5 (non-elected species 2) as described in paragraph [0036]. Therefore, claims 4-8 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, line 12, it appears “the first hook and loop fastener” should be “the first hook/loop fastener”. 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 1-3 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 is rendered indefinite by the limitation “a cushion portion interposed between the flap hook/loop fastener” since it is unclear how the cushion portion can be interposed between one element. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets the limitation as “a cushion portion interposed between the flap hook/loop fastener and the second hook/loop fastener”.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fletcher (US 5,332,135).
Regarding claim 1, Fletcher discloses a removable protective watch cover (See Figs. 1-2) comprising: a tubular body portion (at 18 in Fig. 1) having a window (between the first slit and second slit labeled in Fig. 1 below) capable of viewing a face of an associated watch when positioned on a body of a user; and a flap portion (at 10 in Fig. 1) selectively securable to the tubular body portion in closed position covering the window (as shown in Fig. 2); wherein the flap portion includes cushioning material (material of element 10 in Fig. 1 inherently provides some degree of cushioning to an object placed thereunder) configured to overlay at least the window of the tubular body portion when the flap portion is in the closed position (as shown in Fig. 2); a strip of material (strip of material between 30 and 22 in Fig. 1) having a first portion having the window and first and second cooperating hook/loop fasteners (at 24 and 20B in Fig. 1 – See Fig. 1 labeled below) on opposite sides of the window such that the first portion can be transformed from a substantially planar structure to the tubular body portion by engaging the first and second cooperating hook/loop fasteners (as shown in Fig. 2); and a flap hook/loop fastener (at 12/14) at an end of the strip opposite the first hook and loop fastener and a cushion portion (material inherently provides some degree of cushioning to an object placed thereunder) interposed between the flap hook/loop fastener and the second hook/loop fastener such that the flap hook/loop fastener can be engaged with the second hook/loop fastener with the cushion portion positioned over the window.
PNG
media_image1.png
778
1372
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fletcher (US 5,332,135) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Krass et al. (US 2016/0250782). As described above, Fletcher discloses the claimed invention except for the specifics of the cushioning material. However, Krass teaches an article (See Fig. 2) comprising a first layer (102A) and a second layer (102B) sandwiching a core layer (104), wherein the layers are formed from fabric material, for the purpose of providing controlled flexibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cushioning portion of Fletcher to be sandwiched by first and second layers as taught by Krass in order to have the desired strength and flexibility. Furthermore, Krass teaches it is well known in the art that silicone material has a high tear strength, water resistant and weather resistant ([0002]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cushioning portion of Fletcher to be formed with a silicone material as taught by Krass in order to have desired strength and water/weather resistance. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Fletcher teaches it is well known in the art for a cover material to be formed from a mesh fabric (nylon) material for the purpose of having stretch, cushion and strength protective properties (column 6, lines 49-66). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the layers of the cushioning portion of Fletcher-Krass to be formed with a mesh fabric material as taught by Fletcher in order to have desired stretch, cushion and strength. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN A REYNOLDS whose telephone number is (571)272-9959. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571) 272-4561. 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.
/STEVEN A. REYNOLDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights