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 .
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.
DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to Application filed on 2/7/2025 in which claims 1-9 were presented for examination.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it repletes with confusing language. It appears as if it was written by AI. Below are two examples of the indefinite language but they are not the only two. Applicant is respectfully requested to review the entire disclosure and correct any language that does not make sense. For example:
Page 4, first para. Discloses that the wing guard 5 is placed between the shin and knee guard 1, 3, but according to Fig. 1 it is placed between the knee guard 3 and upper thigh guard 7.
Page 4, last two lines of the first para. Discloses “The shin and knee…sewing lines 11”. However, Fig. 5 illustrates that 11 is actually a strap.
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 following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Wing guard BETWEEN the shin and knee guards
Split into three parts.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 6, line 2 change “the top” to –a top--. change “the rest” to –a rest--. 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 claims 1-9 are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited. It appears as if the claims are written by AI.
Claim 1, line 1-2 recites that the wing guard is between the shin and knee guards, however the drawings are showing the wing guard (5) is between the lower knee guard (3) and the upper thigh guard (7). It is unclear what the applicant is trying to claim.
Claim 1, line 2 recites “the guards” it is unclear which guard the applicant is claiming, which guards?
Claims 1 recites a split which is indefinite because it is unclear what is the split the applicant is trying to claim, the drawings and specification do not clarify what the split is, splitting the shin guard into three parts is not clear. The figure is showing the shin guard as a one piece.
Claim 3 recites “knee protector” which is indefinite, did the applicant meant to claim –knee guard--?
Claim 8 is very confusing, it starts with “The foam system” it should start with –The dual-purpose leg protector--. Then it recites “the knee structure” which is indefinite because it is unclear what the metes and bounds the applicant is trying to claim.
Claim 9 is confusing because it is unclear if it is an independent claim or dependent claim.it was interpreted that it depends from claim 1, applicant must clarify if the claim is dependent and change the start of the claim with --The dual-purpose leg protector--.
Claims 2 and 4-7 are rejected because they depend directly or indirectly from rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, these claims recite human body parts, of which limitations positively reciting non-statutory subject matter. Claim 1, line 6 recite a knee cap, it is recommended to utilize “configured to” or adapted to” in order to overcome the rejection, for example “wing guards positioned over the knee pad” change to –wing guards configured to be positioned over the knee cap--. Claim 4, line 2 change “to cover” to –configured to cover--.
Claims 2-3 and 5-9 are rejected because they depend from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Budda (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0083527 A1) as best understood.
Regarding claim 1, Budda discloses a dual-purpose leg protector (Fig. 1 identifier 10) comprising
a lower shin guard (18, 20, 22), a knee guard (12,14) and wing guards (16) between the shin and knee guards (See Fig. 1), wherein the guards (12, 22) each have a separate padding layer (Fig. 2 identifiers 24, 26) and (the guards) are joined together by means of straps (32) wherein,
the shin guard (18, 20, 22) is split into two parts (18, 20 and 22);
the knee guard (12, 14) is above the shin guard (18, 20, 22 as shown in Fig. 1), and
inside and outside wing guards (18) are (capable) positioned over the knee cap (of the wearer when worn), (capable to) act as a stabilizer and facilitate catcher movement (because they are hingly connected as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, Budda discloses a dual-purpose leg protector (capable to be worn by) a baseball catcher. The introductory statement of intended use and all other functional statements have been carefully considered but deemed not to impose any structural limitations on the claims distinguishable over the Referenced device which is capable of being used as claimed if one desired to do so. MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 3, Budda discloses a dual-purpose leg protector wherein the shin and knee protectors are configured with the three parts being held together by a precise conjunction of straps, rivets and sewing lines (See Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Budda discloses a dual-purpose leg protector, the recitation “wherein the inside wing guard area moves into position to cover any exposed area on the inside and outside of the leg between shin and knee guards” is considered as functional, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable of performing the claimed function.
Regarding claim 5, Budda discloses a dual-purpose leg protector wherein the wing guard acts as a stabilizer providing support for the catcher's knees to ensure that a knee does not roll out of the shin guard during use of the protector” is considered as functional, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable of performing the claimed function.
Regarding claim 6, Budda discloses a dual-purpose leg protector wherein a retainer strap (34), the recitation “holds a part of the shin guard and prevents the top third of the shin guard from completely coming off the rest of the shin guard” is considered as functional, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable of performing the claimed function.
Regarding claim 7, Budda discloses a dual-purpose leg protector comprising a lightweight foam system reinforced with multiple foams (Fig. 2 identifier 24, 26).
Regarding claim 8, Budda discloses a dual-purpose leg protector, the recitation “ensures integration between the leg protector and the knee structure and eliminates gaps that could compromise protection” is considered as functional, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable of performing the claimed function.
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 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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budda (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0083527 A1) in view of Brown et al. (U.S. Patent No. 2007/0250977 A1) as best understood.
Regarding claim 9, Budda discloses the invention substantially as claimed above.
Budda does not disclose an elongated, adjustable toe cap and built-in ankle protection, including a bellowed ankle design that prevents digging and enhances comfort during prolonged use.
However, Brown et al. “Brown” teaches yet another dual-purpose leg protector (See Fig. 1) further comprising an elongated, adjustable toe cap and built-in ankle protection, including a bellowed ankle design that prevents digging and enhances comfort during prolonged use (See Fig. 1).
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 manufactured Budda device with an elongated, adjustable toe cap and built-in ankle protection, including a bellowed ankle design that prevents digging and enhances comfort during prolonged use as taught by Brown in order to enhance protection to the feet of the wearer preventing potential injuries to the feet of the wearer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered (See PTO-892) pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHALED ANNIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 am-5 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alissa Tompkins can be reached at 571-272-3425. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KHALED ANNIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights