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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the seam (claim 5), the first and second portions (claim 7), “wherein the envelope is counter-shaped to the inflatable element and has, in the inflated condition and the deflated condition of the inflatable element, the substantially sheet-like shape” (claim 10), seams (claim 17) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Regarding the seam of claim 5, para. 0172 states “For example, as shown in the sectional views of figures 11 and 15, the inflatable element 2 is sewn (see the seam C) to at least one of the inner and outer cover 4, 5, optionally at the seam joining said covers4, 5, placed at the outer peripheral portion of the envelope 3;” however, there is no “seam C” in FIGS 11 or 15.
Regarding claim 10, the drawings show the envelope has a three-dimensional shape when the inflatable element is in the inflated condition. The drawings do not show the envelope has a sheet-like shape when the inflatable element is in the inflated condition.
Regarding the seams of claim 17, the drawings do not have support for plural seams.
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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “seam C”. 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. 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.
The following objections are because FIG 11 has two 2a’s and two 2b’s. One 2a and one 2b are pointing to the same middle element, indicating 2a and 2b are the same element. Each 2a is pointing to two different elements. Each 2b is also pointing to two different elements.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "2a" and "2b" have both been used to designate the middle layer in FIG 11. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “2a” has been used to designate both the middle layer and lower layer in FIG 11. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “2b” has been used to designate both the middle layer and upper layer in FIG 11. 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. 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 specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “wherein the envelope is counter-shaped to the inflatable element and has, in the inflated condition and the deflated condition of the inflatable element, the substantially sheet-like shape.” (claim 10).
The use of the term KEVLAR, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. See specification paragraphs 43, 48, 84, 182, 189, 196, 220, and 221. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: abbreviations that are not spelled out (e.g. PVC, EVA), and para. 127 defines “digital processor” as “CPU” whereas the common definition for CPU would be Central Processing Unit.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: delete “t”.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: there appears to be an extra space before “2”.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: delete the stray colon in the second to last line.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: insert –a—before “section”.
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 8, 10, 12, 15-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 contains the trademark/trade name KEVLAR. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe poly-para-phenylene terephthalamide and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim 10 is rendered indefinite by the recitation “sheet-like.” The term " sheet -like" is indefinite as it is not clear what structure the term encompasses. To what extent must an element look like a sheet in order to be considered " sheet -like?"
Claim 10 is rendered indefinite by the recitation “wherein the envelope is counter-shaped to the inflatable element and has, in the inflated condition and the deflated condition of the inflatable element, the substantially sheet-like shape.” One of ordinary skill would understand a “sheet-like shape” to be flat. According to Applicant’s disclosure (e.g., para. 00155), when the inflatable element is in the inflated condition, the envelope has a three-dimensional shape, not a flat shape. If the shape shown in FIG 15 is “sheet-like,” then Applicant is requested to explain what the difference is between “sheet-like” and “three-dimensional.” As best understood by the disclosure, both the inflatable element and the envelope are sheet-like in the deflated condition and three-dimensional in the inflated condition, which is inconsistent with claim 10.
Claim 12 is rendered indefinite by the recitation “wherein the envelope and the inflatable element have, in both the inflated condition and the deflated condition of the inflatable element, has the substantially sheet-like shape.” Particularly, “have” and “has” make it unclear if both the envelope and inflatable element have the sheet-like shape or if only one of the envelope or inflatable element haws the sheet-like shape. Claim 12 is also indefinite for the presumed recitation of the envelope and inflatable element having in the inflated condition, the substantially sheet-like shape, because disclosure does not support the envelope or inflatable element having a sheet-like shape in the inflated condition.
Claim 15 is also indefinite for the presumed recitation of the envelope and inflatable element having in the inflated condition, the substantially sheet-like shape, because disclosure does not support the envelope or inflatable element having a sheet-like shape in the inflated condition.
Claim 16 is rendered indefinite by the recitation “wherein the inflatable element is fixed to at least one of the inner and outer covers at a peripheral portions joined together of said inner and outer covers” because it cannot be determined if there is one peripheral portion or plural peripheral portions, nor what is meant by “joined together of said inner and outer covers.”
Claim 17 is indefinite because it is not clear what is “placed at the outer peripheral portion of the envelope,” the inflatable element, the seams, the covers, or some combination of these?
All of the claims are examined as best understood.
Claims that depend from a rejected claim are also rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 10-12, 16, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Segal (US 11064753 B2).
As to claim 1, Segal discloses a wearable protection device for a neck of a mammal (“Dual functioning head protection device,” title, capable of being and intended to be for a neck of a mammal such as the human shown in FIGS 1-2), said protection device comprising: at least one envelope having a compartment and extending along a longitudinal trajectory (combination of 11 and 22, the compartment is occupied by 20), wherein the envelope is configured to delimit a seat configured to accommodate a neck of a user wearing the wearable protection device (capable of delimiting, such as by providing a physical barrier proximate the wearer’s neck), at least one inflatable element housed in the compartment and configurable between a deflated condition and an inflated condition (21), wherein the envelope has an outer surface (FIG 1), wherein said outer surface of the envelope, in the deflated condition of the inflatable element, has a first area less than a second area defined by the outer surface of the envelope when the inflatable element is in the inflated condition (capable of having and intended to have, see the deflated condition in FIG 1 and the inflated condition in FIG 2, and in FIG 1 11 has less area than in FIG 2), wherein the envelope comprises an inner cover and an outer cover of sheet material (11 and 22), at least partially opposed to each other (FIGS 1-2), wherein a maximum distance between the inner cover and the outer cover defines a height of the envelope (FIG 2), and wherein a ratio between the height of the envelope, in the inflated condition of the inflatable element, and the height of the envelope in the deflated condition of the inflatable element is at least 2 (capable of being and intended to be, the inflated condition has a height at least 2x the deflated condition height).
As to claim 2, Segal discloses the wearable protection device according to claim 1, wherein the ratio between the height of the envelope in the inflated condition of the inflatable element and the height of the same envelope when the inflatable element is in the deflated condition is in a range of 3 to 10.
The recitations “inflated condition” and “deflated condition” are intended use recitations. A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Because the prior art reference and the claimed invention are structurally identical, they are expected to be capable of being used in the same manner, and the prior art reference reads on the intended use recitation in the claim.
Applicant is respectfully reminded that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case Segal FIGS 1-2 show a ratio between the height of the envelope in the inflated condition of the inflatable element and the height of the same envelope when the inflatable element is in the deflated condition appears to be in a range of 3 to 10, but the ratio is also capable of being in a range of 3 to 10, such as by inflating 21 more or less.
As to claim 3, Segal discloses the wearable protection device according to claim 1, wherein t a ratio between the second area of the outer surface of the envelope and the first area of the outer surface of the envelope is in a range of 1. 2 to 7.
The recitations “the first area” and “the second area” are functions of the “inflated condition” and “deflated condition,” which are intended use recitations. As a result, the first and second areas are also intended use recitations.
The recitations “inflated condition” and “deflated condition” are intended use recitations. A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Because the prior art reference and the claimed invention are structurally identical, they are expected to be capable of being used in the same manner, and the prior art reference reads on the intended use recitation in the claim.
Applicant is respectfully reminded that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case Segal FIGS 1-2 show a ratio between the second area of the outer surface of the envelope and the first area of the outer surface of the envelope appears to be in a range of 1. 2 to 7, but the ratio is also capable of being in a range of 1. 2 to 7, such as by inflating 21 more or less.
As to claim 4, Segal discloses the wearable protection device according to claim 1, wherein the envelope has, in a section along a plane orthogonal to the longitudinal trajectory, a closed outer perimeter (FIGS 1-2), wherein the outer perimeter of the envelope, in the deflated condition of the inflatable element, has a first length less than a second length of the closed outer perimeter of the envelope when the inflatable element is in the inflated condition, and wherein a ratio between the second length and the first length of the outer perimeter of the envelope is in a range of 1.2 to 7.
The recitations “the first length” and “the second length” are functions of the “inflated condition” and “deflated condition,” which are intended use recitations. As a result, the first and second lengths are also intended use recitations.
The recitations “inflated condition” and “deflated condition” are intended use recitations. A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Because the prior art reference and the claimed invention are structurally identical, they are expected to be capable of being used in the same manner, and the prior art reference reads on the intended use recitation in the claim.
Applicant is respectfully reminded that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case Segal FIGS 1-2 show a ratio between the second length and the first length of the outer perimeter of the envelope appears to be in a range of 1.2 to 7, but the ratio is also capable of being in a range of 1. 2 to 7, such as by inflating 21 more or less.
As to claim 10, Segal discloses the wearable protection device according to claim 1, wherein the inflatable element, in the deflated condition, defines a substantially sheet-like shape, and wherein the envelope is counter-shaped to the inflatable element and has, in the inflated condition and the deflated condition of the inflatable element, the substantially sheet-like shape.
The recitations “inflated condition” and “deflated condition” are intended use recitations. A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Because the prior art reference and the claimed invention are structurally identical, they are expected to be capable of being used in the same manner, and the prior art reference reads on the intended use recitation in the claim.
Applicant is respectfully reminded that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case the inflatable element, in the deflated condition, defines a substantially sheet-like shape, such as by flattening 21 which is film (Segal col 3 line 25-30), and wherein the envelope is counter-shaped to the inflatable element and is capable of having, in the inflated condition and the deflated condition of the inflatable element, the substantially sheet-like shape, such as by flattening 11 and/ or 22, as 22 is polyamide (Segal col 3 line 20-25).
As to claim 11, Segal discloses the wearable protection device according to claim 1, wherein the inner cover and the outer cover of the envelope, in the deflated condition of the inflatable element, are substantially facing and side by side each other.
The recitations “inflated condition” and “deflated condition” are intended use recitations. A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Because the prior art reference and the claimed invention are structurally identical, they are expected to be capable of being used in the same manner, and the prior art reference reads on the intended use recitation in the claim.
Applicant is respectfully reminded that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case the inner cover and the outer cover of the envelope, in the deflated condition of the inflatable element, are capable of substantially facing and side by side each other, as 21 is enclosed in 11 in FIG 1.
As to claim 12, Segal discloses the wearable protection device according to claim 1, wherein the envelope, in the deflated condition of the inflatable element, defines a substantially sheet-like shape, and wherein the envelope is counter-shaped to the inflatable element, wherein the envelope and the inflatable element have, in both the inflated condition and the deflated condition of the inflatable element, has the substantially sheet-like shape.
The recitations “inflated condition” and “deflated condition” are intended use recitations. A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Because the prior art reference and the claimed invention are structurally identical, they are expected to be capable of being used in the same manner, and the prior art reference reads on the intended use recitation in the claim.
Applicant is respectfully reminded that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case the inflatable element, in the deflated condition, is capable of defining a substantially sheet-like shape, such as by flattening 21 which is film (Segal col 3 line 25-30), and wherein the envelope is counter-shaped to the inflatable element and has, in the inflated condition and the deflated condition of the inflatable element, the substantially sheet-like shape, such as by flattening 11 and/ or 21 and/ or 22, as 22 is polyamide (Segal col 3 line 20-25).
As to claim 16, Segal discloses a wearable protection device for a neck of a human (“Dual functioning head protection device,” title, capable of being and intended to be for a neck of a human such as the human shown in FIGS 1-2), said protection device comprising: at least one envelope having a compartment and extending along a longitudinal trajectory (combination of 11 and 22, the compartment is occupied by 20), wherein the envelope is configured to delimit a seat which is configured to allow a user’s neck to be accommodated (capable of delimiting, such as by providing a physical barrier proximate the wearer’s neck; configured to allow, such as by providing an opening for the neck as shown in FIGS 1-3), at least one inflatable element housed in the compartment of the envelope and configurable between a deflated and an inflated condition (21), wherein the envelope includes an outer surface (FIG 1), wherein said outer surface of the envelope, in the deflated condition of the inflatable element, has a first area less than a second area defined by the outer surface of the envelope when the inflatable element is in the inflated condition (capable of having and intended to have, see the deflated condition in FIG 1 and the inflated condition in FIG 2, and in FIG 1 11 has less area than in FIG 2), wherein the envelope comprises an inner cover and an outer cover of sheet material (11 and 22), at least partially opposed to each other (FIGS 1-2), and wherein the inflatable element is fixed to at least one of the inner and outer covers at a peripheral portions joined together of said inner and outer covers (FIG 2 shows all of the components of the device are joined together, including at peripheral portions).
As to claim 18, Segal discloses the wearable protection device according to claim 16, wherein at least 70% of a surface extent of each of the inner cover and the outer cover, in the deflated condition and in the inflated condition of the inflatable element, are in direct contact with the inflatable element.
The recitation “surface extent of each of the inner cover and the outer cover” is a function of the “inflated condition” and “deflated condition,” which are intended use recitations. As a result, the surface extents are also intended use recitations.
The recitations “inflated condition” and “deflated condition” are intended use recitations. A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Because the prior art reference and the claimed invention are structurally identical, they are expected to be capable of being used in the same manner, and the prior art reference reads on the intended use recitation in the claim.
Applicant is respectfully reminded that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case at least 70% of a surface extent of each of the inner cover and the outer cover, in the deflated condition and in the inflated condition of the inflatable element, are capable of being in direct contact with the inflatable element and intended to be in direct contact, as the inflation of 21 results in the expansion of 22 because 21 is within 22 (Segal col 3 line 10-40).
As to claim 20, Segal discloses the wearable protection device according to claim 16, wherein the envelope has, in section along a plane orthogonal to the longitudinal trajectory, a closed outer perimeter (FIGS 1-2), wherein the outer perimeter of the envelope, in the deflated condition of the inflatable element, has a first length less than a second length of the outer perimeter of the envelope when the inflatable element is in the inflated condition, and wherein the ratio between the value of the second length to the value and the first length of the outer perimeter of the envelope is in a range of 1.2 to 7.
The recitations “the first length” and “the second length” are functions of the “inflated condition” and “deflated condition,” which are intended use recitations. As a result, the first and second lengths are also intended use recitations.
The recitations “inflated condition” and “deflated condition” are intended use recitations. A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Because the prior art reference and the claimed invention are structurally identical, they are expected to be capable of being used in the same manner, and the prior art reference reads on the intended use recitation in the claim.
Applicant is respectfully reminded that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case Segal FIGS 1-2 show a ratio between the second length and the first length of the outer perimeter of the envelope appears to be in a range of 1.2 to 7, but the ratio is also capable of being in a range of 1. 2 to 7, such as by inflating 21 more or less.
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.
Claim(s) 5-6, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segal (US 11064753 B2).
As to claim 5, Segal does not disclose the wearable protection device according to claim 1, wherein the inner cover and the outer cover are joined by a seam at least at an outer peripheral portion of the envelope.
Segal col 3 line 25-40 discloses sections of 21 correspond to sections of 22. On one of ordinary skill would recognize that it would be desirable to attach like sections of 21 to like sections of 22 so that they do not become separated in the transition from deflated to inflated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the inner cover and the outer cover are joined by a seam at least at an outer peripheral portion of the envelope so that the respective sections of 21 and 22 maintain their intended positions.
As to claim 6, Segal does not disclose the wearable protection device according to claim 5, wherein a range of 10% to 40% of the material forming the envelope is an elastically deformable material.
Segal col 3 line 20-25 discloses 22 is polyamide, which has at least some degree of elasticity, but Segal is silent as to the degree of elasticity.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to a range of 10% to 40% of the material forming 22 is an elastically deformable material, since it is 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. See MPEP 2144.07.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to a range of 10% to 40% of the material forming 22 is an elastically deformable material, in order to provide a material with the desired degree of elasticity when under force from expanded inner bag 21.
As to claim 17, Segal does not disclose the wearable protection device according to claim 16, wherein the inflatable element is sewn to at least one of the inner cover or the outer cover, at seams joining said covers, placed at the outer peripheral portion of the envelope.
Segal col 3 line 25-40 discloses sections of 21 correspond to sections of 22. On one of ordinary skill would recognize that it would be desirable to attach like sections of 21 to like sections of 22 so that they do not become separated in the transition from deflated to inflated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the inflatable element is sewn to at least one of the inner cover or the outer cover, at seams joining said covers, placed at the outer peripheral portion of the envelope so that the respective sections of 21 and 22 maintain their intended positions.
As to claim 19, Segal discloses the wearable protection device according to claim 16, wherein the inflatable element has an inner peripheral portion and an outer peripheral portion (FIG 2), but does not disclose at least one section of the outer peripheral portion or the inner peripheral portion is sewn to the envelope.
Segal col 3 line 25-40 discloses sections of 21 correspond to sections of 22. On one of ordinary skill would recognize that it would be desirable to attach like sections of 21 to like sections of 22 so that they do not become separated in the transition from deflated to inflated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide at least one section of the outer peripheral portion or the inner peripheral portion is sewn to the envelope so that the respective sections of 21 and 22 maintain their intended positions.
Claim(s) 7-9, 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segal (US 11064753 B2) in view of Dainese (US 8608191 B2).
As to claim 7, Segal does not disclose the wearable protection device according to claim 1, wherein the inner cover of the envelope comprises: a first portion made of a first material, and a second portion made of a second material, wherein the first material of the first portion of the inner cover is different from the second material of the second portion of the same inner cover, wherein the first material of the first portion of the inner cover is substantially non-elastically deformable, wherein the second material of the second portion of the inner cover, during a transition of the inflatable element from the deflated to the inflated condition, is elastically deformable, wherein the outer cover of the envelope comprises: a first portion made of a first material, and a second portion made of a second material, wherein the first material of the first portion of the outer cover is different from the second material of the second portion of the same outer cover, wherein the first material of the first portion of the outer cover is substantially non-elastically deformable, and wherein the second material of the second portion of the outer cover, during the transition of the inflatable element from the deflated to the inflated condition, is elastically deformable.
Dainese teaches a similar device (“Protection device including an inflatable member,” title) including the envelope has an inner and outer covering (21 and 22), and the layers are laminates comprising a first portion made of a first material (e.g. nylon fabric, col 9 line 35-45) and a second portion made of a second material (e.g. polyurethane, col 9 line 35-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the inner and outer covers with first portions of a first material and second portions of a second material, in order to provide a known fabric for enclosing a bladder.
As to claim 8, Segal as modified discloses the wearable protection device according to claim 7, wherein the first material of the inner cover comprises a fabric including at least one of: nylon, polyester, cotton, synthetic aramid fiber, leather, nonwoven fabric, or Kevlar, wherein the second material of the inner cover comprises at least one of the following materials: rubber, polyurethane, or polyurethane synthetic fibers, wherein the first material of the outer cover comprises a fabric including at least one of: nylon, polyester, cotton, synthetic aramid fiber, leather, nonwoven fabric, or Kevlar, and wherein the second material of the outer cover comprises at least one of: materials: rubber, polyurethane, or synthetic fibers of polyurethane (this is the result of the modification presented in the rejection of claim 7 above, see Dainese col 9 line 35-45).
As to claim 9, Segal as modified discloses the wearable protection device according to claim 7, wherein the first portion of the inner cover has a predetermined surface extent greater than a surface extent of the second portion of the same inner cover (this is the result of the modification presented in the rejection of claim 7 above, see Dainese col 9 line 35-45 which discloses the first portion is 65% and the second portion is 35%).
As to claim 13, Segal discloses a wearable protection device for a neck of a human (“Dual functioning head protection device,” title, capable of being and intended to be for a neck of a human such as the human shown in FIGS 1-2), said protection device comprising: at least one envelope having a compartment and extending along a longitudinal trajectory (combination of 11 and 22, the compartment is occupied by 20), wherein the envelope is configured to delimit a seat which is configured to allow a user’s neck to be accommodated (capable of delimiting, such as by providing a physical barrier proximate the wearer’s neck; configured to allow, such as by providing an opening for the neck as shown in FIGS 1-3), at least one inflatable element housed in the compartment of the envelope and configurable between a deflated and an inflated condition (21), wherein the envelope has an outer surface (FIG 1), wherein said outer surface of the envelope, in the deflated condition of the inflatable element, has a first area less than a second area defined by the same outer surface of the envelope when the inflatable element is in the inflated condition (capable of having and intended to have, see the deflated condition in FIG 1 and the inflated condition in FIG 2, and in FIG 1 11 has less area than in FIG 2), wherein the envelope comprises an inner cover and an outer cover of sheet material (11 and 22), at least partially opposed to each other (FIGS 1-2).
Segal does not disclose the wearable protection device according to claim 1, wherein the inner cover of the envelope comprises: a first portion made of a first material, and a second portion made of a second material, wherein the first material of the first portion of the inner cover is different from the second material of the second portion of the same inner cover, wherein the first material of the first portion of the inner cover is a substantially non-elastically deformable, wherein the second material of the second portion of the inner cover, during the transition of the inflatable element from the deflated to the inflated condition, is an elastically deformable, wherein the outer cover of the envelope comprises: a first portion made of a first material, and a second portion made of a second material, wherein the first material of the first portion of the outer cover is different from the second material of the second portion of the same outer cover, wherein the first material of the first portion of the outer cover is a substantially non-elastically deformable, and wherein the second material of the second portion of the outer cover, during the transition of the inflatable element from the deflated to the inflated condition, is elastically deformable.
Dainese teaches a similar device (“Protection device including an inflatable member,” title) including the envelope has an inner and outer covering (21 and 22), and the layers are laminates comprising a first portion made of a first material (e.g. nylon fabric, col 9 line 35-45) and a second portion made of a second material (e.g. polyurethane, col 9 line 35-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the inner and outer covers with first portions of a first material and second portions of a second material, in order to provide a known fabric for enclosing a bladder.
As to claim 14, Segal as modified discloses the wearable protection device according to claim 13, wherein the first portion of the inner cover has a predetermined surface extent greater than a surface extent of the second portion of the same inner cover (this is the result of the modification presented in the rejection of claim 13 above, see Dainese col 9 line 35-45 which discloses the first portion is 65% and the second portion is 35%).
As to claim 15, Segal discloses the wearable protection device according to claim 13, wherein the envelope, in the deflated condition of the inflatable element, defines a substantially sheet-like shape, and wherein the envelope is counter-shaped to the inflatable element, wherein the envelope and the inflatable element have, in both the inflated condition and the deflated condition of the inflatable element, the substantially sheet-like shape.
The recitations “inflated condition” and “deflated condition” are intended use recitations. A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Because the prior art reference and the claimed invention are structurally identical, they are expected to be capable of being used in the same manner, and the prior art reference reads on the intended use recitation in the claim.
Applicant is respectfully reminded that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case the inflatable element, in the deflated condition, is capable of defining a substantially sheet-like shape, such as by flattening 21 which is film (Segal col 3 line 25-30), and wherein the envelope is counter-shaped to the inflatable element and has, in the inflated condition and the deflated condition of the inflatable element, the substantially sheet-like shape, such as by flattening 11 and/ or 21 and/ or 22, as 22 is polyamide (Segal col 3 line 20-25).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SALLY HADEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6731. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
SALLY HADEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3732
/SALLY HADEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732