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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the title is repeated in the abstract and the use of the phrase “the present disclosure”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The use of the term VELCRO, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be entirely 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 1-11 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.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear if the first and second mating portions of the front and back portions are included in the “at least one first mating interface”, “and at least one second mating interface” or are they separate structures? It is unclear what mating surfaces are required of the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first and second ends". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear where the at least one mating interface and at least one second mating interface are located on the headband. Are they attached to the connection element(s), or the front/back portions?
Claim 1 recites the limitations "the first mating interfaces” and “said at least one connection elements”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear if “a corresponding second mating interface” is referring to the at last one second mating interface or an additional structure.
Claim 4 recites the limitations "the mating interface”, “the other mating interface”, “the mating interfaces". There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Regarding claim 4, it is unclear what mating interface structure is required of the claim, since multiple different mating interface structures are being referred to.
Regarding claim 5, it is unclear what corresponding first and second mating interfaces are referring to and if these are additional interfaces than those previously presented in claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, it is unclear what the limitation “comprises a loop forming a loop” requires, are there multiple loops being claimed? Or is there one loop?
Regarding claim 7, it is unclear how “a second mating interface” relates to the second mating interface of claim 1, is this an additional second mating interface?
Regarding claim 7, it is unclear what “two eachother” is referring to.
Regarding claim 9, the language “preferably” is indefinite, it is unclear if the limitation is required or not required to read on the claim.
Any remaining claims are rejected depending from a rejected base claim.
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) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Piper et al. (US 2005/0204456).
In regard to claim 1, Piper et al. teaches a protective headband (headband: 100) comprising: a front portion comprising at least one first end (front portion: 615; paragraph 0155); a back portion comprising at least one second end (back portion: 616, paragraph 0155); at least one connection element (straps: 618, 619); wherein each one of the first and the second ends comprises one of a first and a second mating interface (figure 6, paragraph 0157), wherein the protective headband comprise at least one first mating interface and at least one second mating interface (figure 6: hook and loop fasteners: paragraph 0157 on each side, upper and lower or the connection strap loop and slot: 666); wherein each of the first mating interfaces is secured, at least partially by one of said at least one connection elements to a corresponding second mating interface (see figure 6), thereby forming at least a first mating pair (see figure 6, either slot and loop or hook and loop fasteners).
In regard to claim 2, Piper et al. teaches wherein the front portion (615) comprises opposite first ends (see figure 6 and paragraph 0155), wherein the back portion (616) comprises opposite second ends (figure 6, paragraph 0155), wherein the at least one connection element is a pair of connection elements (618 and 617), wherein the at least one first mating interface and at least one second mating interface is two first mating interfaces and two second mating interfaces (see figure 6 and paragraph 0157), wherein each of the first mating interfaces is secured, at least partially by a connection element of said pair of connection elements (618, 617) to a corresponding second mating interface, thereby forming a first and a second mating pair (see figure 6, paragraph 0157).
In regard to claim 3, Piper et al. teaches wherein each mating pair comprises an interlocking configuration defined by a relationship between corresponding first and second mating interfaces (see figure 6, paragraph 0157).
In regard to claim 4, Piper et al. teaches wherein said interlocking configuration comprises that one of the mating interfaces overlaps the other mating interface (see ends of 669, 668 and paragraph 0157) and/or that the one of the mating interfaces is received in a cavity of the other mating interface.
In regard to claim 5, Piper et al. teaches wherein each connection element is releasably secured between corresponding first and second mating interfaces (see figure 6, paragraph 0157).
In regard to claim 6, Piper et al. teaches wherein each connection element comprises a loop portion forming a loop around an opening of a corresponding first mating interface of each mating pair (see loop formed by connection elements 618, 617 and opening/slot: 666, paragraph 0157).
In regard to claim 7, Piper et al. teaches wherein each connection element (617, 618) comprises a first and a second end being releasably secured to a corresponding second mating interface or to each other (identifier 668, 669 and paragraph 0157).
In regard to claim 8, Piper et al. teaches wherein each connection element (617, 618) abuts two opposing surfaces of the protective headband (see figure 6 abutment of opposing surfaces adjacent slot: 666).
In regard to claim 9, Piper et al. teaches wherein said front portion and said back portion are, by said at least one connection element adjustable relative each other, preferably to a pre-defined extent defined by at least one barrier comprised in each mating pair (615 and 616 are adjustable relative to one another see paragraph 0157shiule the slot: 66 would prevent the front headband from entering the slot and therefore be a barrier).
In regard to claim 10, Piper et al. teaches wherein the at least one connection element is an elastic connection element (paragraph 0158).
In regard to claim 11, Piper et al. teaches wherein the first mating interface is received in a cavity of the second mating interface (loop of 618/617), wherein the cavity (slot: 666) comprises a constraint portion dimensioned to constraint a sliding movement of the first mating interface relative the second mating interface to a pre-defined extent (constraint is size of slot that would prevent the front head portion form entering the slot of the rear head portion due to size).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be found cited in PTO-892 form herewith. The cited prior art to Lukens (US 8,291,520) is of particular relevance to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALISSA L HOEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4985. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00-5:30 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, Clinton T 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.
ALISSA L. HOEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3732
/ALISSA L HOEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights