Detailed Action
Amendment
1. This office action is in response to applicant’s amendments dated 1-27-26 and this office action is a final rejection.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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 10-12 and 14-19 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.
Claims 10 and 17 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. In each of claims 10 and 17 it is unclear to how the horizontal plane is formed by the hooks in that a plane is not a physical tangible object that can be formed/created.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
(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.
Claim(s) 10-11 and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 4,530,310 to Clarke.
Referring to claim 10, Clarke discloses a leash system, relating to leashing a pet by a collar using one hand comprising, at least one collar coupler structured and arranged to couple with the collar of the pet – see at 48,49 coupling with collar 19 in figure 1, at least one coupler lever-handle – see at 55, structured and arranged to receive a single hand application of a force – see figures 1-4 where the device is designed to be used with a single hand on the handle – at 56,74,90, a pivot – structure at and near 52, structured and arranged to pivot the at least one coupler lever-handle and the at least one collar coupler to lever the at least one collar coupler open upon application of the force upon the at least one coupler lever-handle – see for example at 50-55 in figures 1-2, at least one closed-position restorer – at 50, structured and arranged to restore the at least one collar coupler to a closed position when the force is removed from the at least one coupler lever-handle – see figures 1-2, at least one relative angle changer – at 54, structured and arranged to change the relative angle through rotation at the pivot – at and near 52 – see figures 1-2, between the collar and the at least one collar coupler as the at least one closed-position restorer closes the at least one collar coupler upon the collar – see at 48-55 in figures 1-2, and at least one leash coupler – see at 42,16 between 42,55, structured and arranged to couple the collar coupler – at 48,49, and a leash – at 16 between 42 and 40 – see figures 1-2. Clarke further discloses the direction of rotation of the change is perpendicular to the direction of closure – see figures 1-2 where the angle changer – at 54, can/is capable of rotate/rotating via the connection of 16,54, about a vertical axis, that is perpendicular to the horizontal direction of closure relative to items 48,49. Clarke further discloses the pivot – at and near 52, is a single pivot – see figures 1-2 with the structure at and near item 52, being a single structural assembly providing the pivoting – at 52, and wherein the at least one collar coupler comprises one of a pair of L- shaped hooks or C-shaped hooks – see C shape at the ends of 48,49 in figures 1-2, and further the hooks can slide over the collar without binding, and the pair of hooks are fixed laterally – see items 48,49 fixed to each other at 52,54, overlap each other – see at 48,49 in figures 1-2, and open and close vertically – see at 48,49 in figures 1-2, so the collar – at 19, can slide between a vertical gap formed between the hooks – at 48,49 in an open position – see figures 1-2. Clarke further discloses the at least one collar coupler – at 48,49, moves vertically to move the hooks – at ends of 48,49, apart vertically to create a vertical gap between the pair of hooks – at 48,49 – see figures 1-2 where the hooks are moved to create a gap and the device can be oriented so that the hooks move vertically as claimed, and a horizontal plane formed by the overlap of the hooks – see plane through the hooks – at 48,49 at their overlap that extends along/through the longitudinal axis, is perpendicular to a vertical plane of movement of the coupler lever-handle – at 55 – see figures 1 where the hooks and lever handle are capable of moving vertically in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the device and horizontal plane.
Referring to claim 11, Clarke further discloses at least one coupler closing restrictor – see bars not labeled extending from item 48 between items 54 and 55 as seen in figures 1-2 or pin/tab and slot portions of 52, structured and arranged to restrict closure of the at least one collar coupler from complete closure – see figures 1-2 and column 3 lines 24-37 detailing over center relationship of items 49 which would provide for a gap/space between items 49 so that these items can move to the overlapping position of figure 1.
Referring to claim 14, Clarke further discloses the at least one coupler closing restrictor comprises at least one tab and slot in the pivot – see slot and tab/pin at 52 in figures 1-2.
Referring to claim 15, Clarke further discloses the leash coupler is at least one swivel – see connection of 16 to 55 in figures 1-2.
Referring to claim 16, Clarke further discloses the at least one swivel – at the connection of 16 and 55, comprises freedom of rotation between the at least one leash coupler – at 16,42, relative to the handle end of one of the two arms – at 48,49 – see figures 1-2 – where the connection of 16 and 55 provides for freedom of rotation of 16 and 55, at a location between the coupler – at 16,42 and the end of the arms – at 48,49.
Referring to claim 17, Clarke discloses a leash system, relating to leashing a pet by a collar using one hand comprising, collar coupler – at 48,49, for coupling with the collar – at 19, of the pet – see figures 1-2. Clarke further discloses a coupler lever-handle – at 55 and portions of 48 between 54 and 55, for receiving single hand application of a force – see figures 1-4 where the device is designed to be used with a single hand on the handle – at 56,74,90. Clarke further discloses a pivot – at 52, for pivoting the coupler lever-handle means and the collar coupler means to lever the collar coupler means open upon application of the force upon the coupler lever-handle means – see figures 1-2. Clarke further discloses a closed-position restorer – at 50, for restoring the collar coupler to a closed position when the force is removed from the coupler lever-handle – see figures 1-2. Clarke further disclose leash coupler – at 16 between 42 and 55 and at 42, for coupling the collar coupler – at 55, and a leash – at 16 between 42 and 40 as seen in figures 1-2. Clarke further discloses the direction of rotation of the change is perpendicular to the direction of closure – see figures 1-2 where the angle changer/rotator – at 54, can/is capable of rotate/rotating via the connection of 16,54, about a vertical axis, that is perpendicular to the horizontal direction of closure relative to items 48,49. Clarke further discloses the pivot – at and near 52, is a single pivot – see figures 1-2 with the structure at and near item 52, being a single structural assembly providing the pivoting – at 52, and wherein the collar coupler comprises one of a pair of L- shaped hooks or C-shaped hooks – see C shape at the ends of 48,49 in figures 1-2, and further the hooks can slide over the collar without binding, and the pair of hooks are fixed laterally – see items 48,49 fixed to each other at 52,54, overlap each other – see at 48,49 in figures 1-2, and open and close vertically – see at 48,49 in figures 1-2, so the collar – at 19, can slide between a vertical gap formed between the hooks – at 48,49 in an open position – see figures 1-2. Clarke further discloses the at least one collar coupler – at 48,49, moves vertically to move the hooks – at ends of 48,49, apart vertically to create a vertical gap between the pair of hooks – at 48,49 – see figures 1-2 where the hooks are moved to create a gap and the device can be oriented so that the hooks move vertically as claimed, and a horizontal plane formed by the overlap of the hooks – see plane through the hooks – at 48,49 at their overlap that extends along/through the longitudinal axis, is perpendicular to a vertical plane of movement of the coupler lever-handle – at 55 – see figures 1 where the hooks and lever handle are capable of moving vertically in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the device and horizontal plane.
Referring to claim 18, Clarke further discloses coupler closing restrictor means – see tab/pin and corresponding slot/opening portions of 52, for restricting closure of the collar coupler means from complete closure – see figures 1-2. It is noted that applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed coupler closing restrictor means and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the closing restrictor means is detailed as a tab and slot that is part of the pivot and portions of pivot item 52 of Clarke are at least functional equivalent pin/tab and opening/slot as seen in figures 1-2 of Clarke.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
Claims 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clarke as applied to claims 11 or 18 above.
Referring to claims 12 and 19, Clarke does not disclose the at least one closure restrictor leaves a gap between the at least one bar of one of the two arms/collar coupler/collar coupler means and the at least one bar of the other the two arms/collar coupler and collar coupler means of between about four thousandths inch and about fifteen thousandths inch. However, applicant has not placed any criticality on the gap being of the claimed sizes and the device of Clarke would operate as intended with the claimed gap sizes in that the bars – at 49 can still move with respect to each other while maintaining the collar – at 19 between the bars in the closed position. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Clarke and add the gap being in the claimed range of sizes, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the bars can easily move with respect to each other during operation/use.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 1-5 and 7-9 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks/arguments dated 1-27-26 obviates the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 1, 17 and 18 detailed in the last office action dated 11-17-25.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claims 10 and 17, the Clarke reference US 4530310 discloses the newly added claim limitations of applicant’s claim amendments dated 1-27-26 in that Clarke discloses the at least one collar coupler – at 48,49, moves vertically to move the hooks – at ends of 48,49, apart vertically to create a vertical gap between the pair of hooks – at 48,49 – see figures 1-2 where the hooks are moved to create a gap and the device can be oriented so that the hooks move vertically as claimed, and a horizontal plane formed by the overlap of the hooks – see plane through the hooks – at 48,49 at their overlap that extends along/through the longitudinal axis, is perpendicular to a vertical plane of movement of the coupler lever-handle – at 55 – see figures 1 where the hooks and lever handle are capable of moving vertically in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the device and horizontal plane. Further, the Clarke reference does not teach away from the claimed invention in that Clarke discloses the hooks are fixed laterally and only move up and down vertically when in a vertical orientation, the hooks overlap as seen in figure 1, open vertically as seen in figure 2 and a single pivot point/structure – at and near 52, is a single pivot – see figures 1-2 with the structure at and near item 52, being a single structural assembly providing the pivoting – at 52.
Conclusion
7. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J PARSLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm 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, Peter Poon can be reached at (571) 272-6891. 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.
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643