Io+6DETAILED 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 .
Acknowledgment is made of the amendment filed July 28, 2026. The application has been updated accordingly.
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.
Claims 1, 4-11, 14-21, 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casebolt et al. (2013/0105247) hereinafter Casebolt, in view of HSU (2012/0018566).
Casebolt discloses:
Claim 1: A self-retracting device (Fig. 1; 100) comprising:
a rotatable hub assembly (Fig. 1; 150) comprising a first half (Fig. 1; 153) and a second half (Fig. 1; 152), wherein:
the first half (Fig. 1; 153) comprises a retraction member (Fig. 1; 159) and a first slot (Fig. 1; 150b) for an axle (Fig. 1; 184);
the second half comprises a second slot (Fig. 1; 152b) for the axle (Fig. 1; 184);
the first half is configured to connect to the second half to form an internal cavity (Fig. 1; 153 and 152 connect via 150a and 152a respectively and form a cavity therebetween, Para. [0021]); and
the retraction member biases the rotatable hub assembly in a first rotational direction (Fig. 1; 159, Para. [0029]);
the axle comprising a body extending through the internal cavity from the first slot of the first half and the second slot of the second half (Fig. 1; 184, Para. [0028]); and
a line (Fig. 1; 155) wherein:
a first end of the line comprises a loop positioned in the internal cavity between the first half and the second half of the rotatable hub assembly, (Fig. 1; see zoomed in detail) the loop extending around the body of the axle (Fig. 1; see zoomed in detail, the loop A contours to A on the hub, loop B wraps around B on the hub and C fits into slot C on the hub – the tab of the line 155 slips into the tab slot leaving the remainder of 155 to extend around section 151 of the rotatable hub assembly 150),
PNG
media_image1.png
670
845
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
801
839
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the line extends outward from the cavity to an external perimeter of the rotatable hub assembly for winding around the perimeter of the rotatable hub assembly in a predetermined direction as directed by a line tab (Fig. 1; 120); and
wherein the rotatable hub assembly is configured to:
retract the line when the rotatable hub assembly moves in the first rotational direction (Para. [0029]); and
pay out the line when the rotatable hub assembly moves in a second rotational direction opposite the first rotational direction (Para. [0029]).
Casebolt fails to disclose wherein the first half comprises a retractable tab and a second tab opening, and the second half comprises a second tab, the second tab being configured to move the retractable tab to an open position to permit positioning of the second tab within the second tab opening via relative rotation between the first and second halves.
However, Hsu discloses the first half comprising a retractable tab (Fig. 3; 332) and a second tab opening (Fig. 3; 330), and the second half comprising a second tab (Fig. 3; 340), the second tab being configured to move the retractable tab to an open position to permit positioning of the second tab within the second tab opening via relative rotation between the first and second halves (Fig. 3; Para. [0031-0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hub assembly of Casebolt to include the tab configuration, as taught by Hsu, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow the first and second halves to be separated by just twisting them rather than having to physically displace a retractable tab in order to twist the halves.
Claims 4 and 14: Hsu discloses the self-retracting device of claim 1, wherein the second tab (Fig. 3; 340) and the retractable tab (Fig. 3; 332) form a snap locking tab when engaged with each other (Fig. 3; Para. [0031-0032]).
Claims 5 and 15: Hsu discloses the self-retracting device of claims 4 and 14, wherein the snap locking tab prevent the first half and the second half from rotating backwards and disassembling (Fig. 3; Para. [0031-0032]).
Claim 6: Casebolt discloses the self-retracting device of claim 1, wherein the first half is connected to the second half through a rotational motion (Fig. 1; 153 and 152 rotate together, Para. [0021]) on a plurality of tabs corresponding to a plurality of openings (Fig. 1; 154 and 152a), wherein the first half (Fig. 1; 153) or the second half comprises the line tab (Fig. 1; once assembled 120 is located in the second half) for bending the line around the perimeter during the rotational motion (Fig. 1; once assembled 155 passes through the slot below 120 where it bends around the perimeter during rotational motion).
Claim 7: Casebolt discloses the self-retracting device of claim 6, wherein the line tab causes the line to bend tangentially with the perimeter of the rotatable hub assembly (Figs. 1-2; 120 will cause 155 to bend tangentially with the perimeter of the hub).
Claim 8: Casebolt discloses the self-retracting device of claim 1, wherein the line bends around the perimeter in a same plane as the loop (Fig. 1; 155 bends around the perimeter in a same plane as the loop).
Claim 9: Casebolt discloses the self-retracting device according to claim 1, wherein the second half (Fig. 1; 152) comprises a braking mechanism (Fig. 1; 162 with 172 and 176, Para. [0023]) configured to prevent rotation of the rotatable hub assembly upon activation of the braking mechanism when a rotational velocity of the rotatable hub assembly exceeds a predetermined threshold (Para. [0032]).
Claim 10: Casebolt discloses the self-retracting device according to claim 9, wherein the braking mechanism comprises a first portion (Fig. 3; 176) and a second portion (Fig. 3; 133), and wherein the first portion engages with the second portion when the predetermined threshold is exceeded (Para. [0032]).
Claim 11: Casebolt discloses a method of assembling a self-retracting device comprising:
placing a loop of a first end of a line ((Fig. 1; see zoomed in detail, the loop A contours to A on the hub, loop B wraps around B on the hub and C fits into slot C on the hub) within a first half of a rotatable hub assembly (Fig. 1; 153 via 151);
placing a second half (Fig. 1; 152) of the rotatable hub assembly on the first half of the rotatable hub assembly, such that the loop is positioned in an internal cavity between the first half and the second half (Fig. 1; when 152 and 153 are assembled then the loop will be between them, Para. [0028]);
inserting an axle (Fig. 1; 184) through an assembly slot extending through the first half and the second half of the rotatable hub assembly such that the loop of the line extends around a body of the axle but not the rotatable hub assembly (Fig. 1; see detail, the loop wraps around perimeter of 150b which 184 extends through – the tab of the line 155 slips into the tab slot leaving the remainder of 155 to extend around section 151 of the rotatable hub assembly 150); and
extending the line outward from the cavity to an external perimeter of the rotatable hub for winding around the perimeter of the rotatable hub assembly (Fig. 1; once assembled 155 will be wrapped around 150 via 151) in a predetermined direction as directed by a line tab (Fig. 1; 120).
Casebolt fails to disclose the wherein the first half comprises a retractable tab and a second tab opening, and the second half comprises a second tab, the second tab being configured to move the retractable tab to an open position;
positioning the second tab within the second tab opening via relative rotation between the first and second halves.
However, Hsu discloses a retractable tab (Fig. 3; 332) and a second tab opening (Fig. 3; 330), and the second half comprising a second tab (Fig. 3; 340), the second tab being configured to move the retractable tab to an open position (Fig. 3; Para. [0031-0032]).;
positioning the second tab within the second tab opening via relative rotation between the first and second halves (Fig. 3; Para. [0031-0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hub assembly of Casebolt to include the tab configuration, as taught by Hsu, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow the first and second halves to be separated by just twisting them rather than having to physically displace a retractable tab in order to twist the halves.
Claim 16: Casebolt discloses the method of assembling the self-retracting device of claim 11, further comprising connecting the second half of the rotatable hub assembly to the first half of the rotatable hub assembly by placing the second half on the first half and rotating the second half (Fig. 1; 153 and 152 connect via 150a and 152a respectively, Para. [0021]), wherein the first half or the second half comprises a line tab (Fig. 1; 120), wherein the line tab bends the body of the line around the perimeter during the rotation of the second half (Fig. 1; once assembled 155 passes through the slot below 120 where it bends around the perimeter during rotational motion).
Claim 17: Casebolt discloses the method of assembling the self-retracting device of claim 16, wherein the line tab bends the body of the line tangentially with the perimeter of the rotatable hub assembly (Figs. 1-2; 120 will cause 155 to bend tangentially with the perimeter of the hub).
Claim 18: Casebolt discloses the method of assembling the self-retracting device of claim 11, wherein the line bends around the perimeter in the same plane as the loop (Fig. 1; 155 bends around the perimeter in a same plane as the loop).
Claim 19: Casebolt discloses the method of assembling the self-retracting device according to claim 11, wherein the second half comprises a braking mechanism (Fig. 1; 162 with 172 and 176, Para. [0023]) configured to prevent rotation of the rotatable hub assembly upon activation of the braking mechanism when a rotational velocity of the rotatable hub assembly exceeds a predetermined threshold (Para. [0032]).
Claim 20: Casebolt discloses the method of assembling the self-retracting device according to claim 19, wherein the braking mechanism comprises a first portion (Fig. 3; 176) and a second portion (Fig. 3; 133), wherein the first portion engages with the second portion when the predetermined threshold is exceeded (Para. [0032]).
Claim 21: Casebolt discloses the self-retracting device of claim 1, wherein when the line is retracted, the second end of the line is supported by the rotatable hub assembly (Fig. 1; the second end of the line is supported by section 151 of the rotatable hub assembly 150).
Claim 24: Hsu discloses the self-retracting device of claim 1, wherein the first half comprises a plurality of retractable tabs movable between a closed position and an open position (Fig. 3; 332, Para. [0031-0032]), and a plurality of second tab openings (Fig. 3; 330, Para. [0031-0032]);
wherein the second half comprises a plurality of second tabs (Fig. 3; 340, Para. [0031-0032]) corresponding to the second tab openings (Para. [0031-0032]);
wherein the first half and the second half are configured to be pressed together such that the second tabs engage the retractable tabs to move the retractable tabs to the open position, and the first half and the second half are further configured for relative rotational movement that positions the second tabs within the second tab openings (Para. [0031-0032]); and
wherein the retractable tabs are biased to the closed position such that the retractable tabs retain the second tabs within the second tab openings, thereby preventing relative reverse rotational movement and disassembly between the first half and the second half (Para. [0031-0032]).
Claim 25: Casebolt and Hsu disclose the self-retracting device of claim 1, wherein the first half (Casebolt - Fig. 1; 153) comprises the retractable tab (Hsu - Fig. 3; 332) positioned in a first tab opening (Hsu - Fig. 3; 342) in a closed position;
wherein the second tab opening (Hsu - Fig. 3; 330) of the first half is adjacent and connected to the first tab opening (Hsu - Fig. 3; 342 and 330 are adjacent and connected);
wherein the second tab (Hsu - Fig. 3; 340) of the second half (Casebolt - Fig. 1; 152) is configured to move the retractable tab to the open position to permit positioning of the second tab within the first tab opening and then within the second tab opening via relative rotation between the first and second halves that causes the second tab to slide from the first tab opening to the second tab opening, allowing the retractable tab to return to the closed position in the first tab opening and prevent the second tab from sliding out of the second tab opening, connecting the first half and second half (Hsu - Fig. 3; Para. [0031-0032]).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casebolt et al. (2013/0105247) hereinafter Casebolt, in view of Hsu (2012/0018566) and further in view of Baranov et al. (8,272,591) hereinafter Baranov.
Claim 22: Casebolt discloses the self-retracting device of claim 1, wherein the first half comprises a first column (Fig. 1; 151) and wherein the line (Fig. 1; 155) is configured to be wrapped around an outer surface of the first column, but fails to disclose and the second half comprises a second column, wherein upon connection of the first half and the second half, the second column is positioned inside the first column.
However, Baranov discloses a second column (Fig. 3; 30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second half of Casebolt to include the column, as taught by Baranov, with a reasonable expectation of success because in combination the second column would add support when connecting the first and second halves.
Thus, in combination Casebolt and Baranov disclose the first half comprises a first column, of Casebolt, and the second half comprises a second column, of Baranov, wherein upon connection of the first half and the second half, the second column, of Baranov, is positioned inside the first column, of Casebolt, and wherein the line is configured to be wrapped around an outer surface of the first column, of Casebolt.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casebolt et al. (2013/0105247) hereinafter Casebolt, in view of Hsu (2012/0018566), and further in view of Hetrich et al. (2011/0278095) hereinafter Hetrich.
Claims 2 and 12: Casebolt discloses the self-retracting device of claims 1 and 11, but fails to disclose wherein the loop is formed with a ferrule termination.
However, Hetrich discloses a loop formed with a termination (Fig. 1; 198, Para. [0029]).
While, Hetrich fails to specifically disclose the use of a ferrule termination, Hetrich does disclose the use of ferrules for terminating another end of the lifeline (Fig. 1; 74, Para. [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to pursue known design options and use a ferrule to terminate the first end of the lifeline to achieve the predictable result of terminating a cable end.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lifeline of Casebolt to terminate the first end of the line with a ferrule, as taught by Hetrich, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would securely attach the line to the drum and prevent it from disconnecting when the line has been fully paid out.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casebolt et al. (2013/0105247) hereinafter Casebolt, in view of Hsu (2012/0018566), and further in view of Griffiths et al. (8,256,574) hereinafter Griffiths.
Claims 3 and 13: Casebolt discloses the self-retracting device of claims 1 and 11, but fails to disclose wherein the first half and the second half are made of a plastic material.
However, Griffiths discloses the hub first half and the second half are made of a plastic material (Col. 7, Lines 12-13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hub first and second halves of Casebolt to be manufactured of plastic, as taught by Griffiths, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would reduce the overall weight and manufacturing costs of the self-retracting device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 26 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 26 is considered allowable due to the retractable tab comprising
a tab head positioned in the first tab opening and configured to receive a force from the second tab and deflect to the open position in response to the force;
a tab body configured to connect the tab head to a base surface of the first half, bend as the tab head receives the force, allowing the tab head to move to the open position, and bias the tab head toward the closed position when the force is not applied to the tab head; and
a side surface configured to prevent the second tab from sliding back to the first tab opening and disassembling the first half and second half.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Hsu discloses the connection of two hub halves, the ease of twisting the hub to separate the halves is the desired result, which is the motivation to make the combination.
In response to applicant's argument that Hsu is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Hsu discloses the connection of two hub halves, what the hub is used for is immaterial, only the manner in which the halves can be attached or detached, which is the particular problem of concern.
Finally, the applicant argues that Hsu fails to disclose the tab connection structure of claim 1 and points to structure and paragraphs that were not cited by the examiner. The embodiment the examiner cited to relies on Fig. 3 and Para. [0031-0032] which discusses a “second tab” (340) that couples with a “retractable tab” (332) and a “second tab opening” (330), where the second tab is configured to move the retractable tab (based on the elasticity discussed in the cited paragraphs) to an open position to permit positioning of the second tab within the second tab opening via relative rotation between the halves. The examiner maintains that Hsu meets these claim limitations, as advanced above in the rejections.
For at least these reasons the applicant’s remarks are not found persuasive and the claims remain rejected as advanced above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kathleen M. McFarland whose telephone number is (571)272-9139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571) 270-3238. 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.
/Kathleen M. McFarland/Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Kathleen M. McFarland
Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/BRIAN D MATTEI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3635
