DETAILED ACTION
The amendments to the specification filed 12/30/2025 have been approved.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/30/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 1 – shouldn’t “lines” be replaced with “a line” since “lines” haven’t not been previously recited? Appropriate correction is required.
11
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 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, 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10194641 to Benabud in view of US 2016/0165849 to Lewis in view of US 2002/0117353 to Jones in view of US 9400008 to Tuttle.
Benabud discloses a harness comprising:
two limb loops 116,122 created from a harness knot 112 (see col. 5, lines 55-67) coupled to a lead via the limb loops of the harness knot at a first end of the lead, wherein the lead is a braided lead; and
wherein the limb loops, lead, and second end 144 of the lead are made from an integral piece of rope. (see FIG. 3 and col. 4 of Benabud)
Benabud fails to disclose 1) a single-bowline knot creating a single-bowline loop at a second end of the lead, and 2) a removable fastener that prevents the braided lead from unbraiding is removably coupled to: the lead in a final loop of the braided lead; and to the limb loops of the harness knot.
Lewis teaches of a similar lead 130 with a second end 110,133 that is adjustable (via element 120), wherein the second end includes a free end 133.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second end disclosed in Menabud to allow the second end to be adjustable, as taught by Lewis, with a reasonable expectation of success in order “to allow for adjustments to a length of the handle portion 110 such that the loop is length-adjustable.” (see [0023] of Lewis)
Furthermore, Jones teaches of a single-bowline knot 32 (see FIG. 2) creating a single-bowline loop at an end of a lead 30.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the free end of the Benabud second end with a single-bowline knot creating a single-bowline loop, as taught in Jones with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow for attachment of the lead to a tree or other support structure. (see [0019] and FIG. 1 and 2 of Jones)
Additionally, Tuttle teaches of a removable fastener 110 that prevents the braided lead 50 from unbraiding is removably coupled to the lead in a final loop 58’ of the braided lead.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to removably couple the Tuttle removable fastener to the limb loops of the harness knot in Benabud, such that the removable fastener is removably coupled to a final loop of the braided lead, as taught by Tuttle with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a lead that is “easily unraveled” and provides “a ready supply of durable cord or rope for the user” in “survival situations.” (see FIGS. 9-13 and col. 3)
Furthermore, by combining the teachings of Tuttle with Benabud, Benabud, as applied above, discloses a removable fastener that prevents the braided lead from unbraiding is removably coupled to the lead in a final loop of the braided lead; and the limb loops of the harness knot. (claim 1)
Benabud, as applied above, further discloses wherein the removable fastener is a carabiner 110. (see FIGS. 8 and 10 of Tuttle) (claim 6)
Benabud, as applied above, further discloses wherein the harness knot includes a tag loop 115 that wraps around the limb loops. (see FIGS. 3-4 of Benabud) (claim 10)
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benabud in view of Lewis in view of Jones in view of Tuttle, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US 4958597 to Mildner.
Benabud, as applied above, fails to disclose wherein the single-bowline loop is cut to create a first line and a second line for attachment to a load.
Mildner teaches of a similar harness wherein a second end is segmented to define a first line 14 and a second line 14 for attachment to a load. (see FIGS. 1-3)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to segment the Benabud single-bowline loop to a first line and second line for attachment to a load, as taught by Mildner, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to engage the harness “on the side-wals of a pickup truck to keep the pet from falling out.” (see abstract of Mildner)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to segment the Benabud single-bowline loop to a first line and second line for attachment to a load, as taught by Mildner, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide two attachment points to a load, rather than one; thus improving user stability when pulling the load as well as adding redundancy when pulling a load, in case of failure of one of the lines. (claim 2)
Benabud, as applied above, further discloses the first line includes a first coupling device 10 for attachment to the load; and the second line includes a second coupling device 10 for attachment to the load (claim 3).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benabud in view of Lewis in view of Jones in view of Tuttle in view of Mildner, as applied to claim 3 above, in view of US 20170360009 to Anderson.
Benabud, as applied above, fails to disclose wherein: the first coupling device of the first line is a carabiner; and the second coupling device of the second line is a carabiner.
Anderson teaches that it is old and well known to use carabiners 36 as a coupling device on a line of a harness. (see FIG. 1)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first and second coupling devices of Benabud with carabiners as taught by Anderson with a reasonable expectation of success in or er to facilitate fastening and engagement of the first and second coupling devices.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benabud in view of Lewis in view of Jones in view of Tuttle, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US 4478311 to Anderson.
Benabud, as applied above, fails to disclose a carabiner coupled to the single-bowline loop for coupling to a load.
Anderson teaches of a carabiner 11 coupled to the single-bowline loop for coupling a load. (see FIG. 1 of Anderson)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach a carabiner to the single-bowline loop of Benabud, as taught by Anderson, in order to facilitate engagement between an object and the lead and to attach an object, via the carabiner, to the lead. (claim 5)
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benabud in view of Lewis in view of Jones in view of Tuttle, as applied to claim 1 above.
Benabud, as applied above, discloses the harness knot is a bowline knot (see [0019] of Jones), but fails to disclose the bowline knot is a parallel-bowline knot.
On the other hand, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use a parallel-bowline knot with Benabud since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a known fastener (“knot”) on the basis of its suitability for the intended use.
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art as evidenced above, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element (“knot”) for another, using known methods with no change in their respective functions. Such a modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, since the elements perform as expected and thus the results would be expected. (claim 7)
Benabud, as applied above, discloses the harness knot is a bowline knot (see [0019] of Jones), but fails to disclose the bowline knot is a Spanish-bowline knot.
On the other hand, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use a Spanish-bowline knot with Benabud since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a known fastener (“knot”) on the basis of its suitability for the intended use.
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art as evidenced above, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element (“knot”) for another, using known methods with no change in their respective functions. Such a modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, since the elements perform as expected and thus the results would be expected. (claim 8)
Benabud, as applied above, discloses the harness knot is a bowline knot (see [0019] of Jones), but fails to disclose the bowline knot is a double-bowline knot.
On the other hand, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use a double-bowline knot with Benabud since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a known fastener (“knot”) on the basis of its suitability for the intended use.
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art as evidenced above, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element (“knot”) for another, using known methods with no change in their respective functions. Such a modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, since the elements perform as expected and thus the results would be expected. (claim 9)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2025 regarding the motivation of combining Benabud with Jones on pages 6-7 of applicant’s response are moot due to the new grounds of rejection.
On page 7 of the applicant’s response filed 12/30/2025, the applicant contends:
PNG
media_image1.png
248
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the applicant’s remarks amount to mere supposition. Put another way, the applicant fails to provide support to the assertion that “the braided rope of Benabud is not raveled up in any way that would make unraveling advantageous.” Also, the applicant points to the Jones reference, however the Jones reference is not the reference being modified. Jones is cited to teach of the singe-bowline knot.
Additionally and contrary to the applicant’s assertion, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to removably couple the Tuttle removable fastener to the limb loops of the harness knot in Benabud, such that the removable fastener is removably coupled to a final loop of the braided lead, as taught by Tuttle with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a lead that is “easily unraveled” and provides “a ready supply of durable cord or rope for the user” in “survival situations.” (see FIGS. 9-13 and col. 3 of Tuttle)
Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 2-4 are moot due to new grounds of rejection.
On page 9 of the applicant’s response filed 12/30/2025, the applicant contends, regarding claim 5, “there is no reason to combine Anderson with Benabud because a carabiner would not be required at Benabud’s pet owner’s hand loop end of the leash.” The examiner respectfully disagrees and reiterates that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach a carabiner to the single-bowline loop of Benabud, as taught by Anderson, in order to facilitate engagement between an object and the lead and to attach the object, via the carabiner, to the lead. That object could be, for example, a container for doggie poop bags.
On pages 9-16 of the applicant’s response filed 12/30/2025, the applicant cites several secondary considerations of nonobviousness, including commercial success, long-felt need, and industry praise.
However, the examiner does not believe the inventors declaration establishes commercial success of the claimed invention. The declaration does not provide data concerning whether the among of sales of the harness represents a substantial share in this market. Prior Board decisions have noted “in the past that evidence related solely to the number of units sold provides a very weak showing of commercial success, if any.” (see In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 137, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1689 (Fed. Cir 1996)) Furthermore, it is unclear whether the sales were a direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention, as opposed to the other economic and commercial factors unrelated to the quality of the claimed subject matter. (see Cable Elec., 770 F.2d at 1027, 226 USPQ at 888)
Also, the declaration does not establish that a long felt need existed since the declaration fails to provide any evidence that an art recognized problem existed in the art for a long period of time without solution. The applicant cites “fatalities caused by falling through ice with insufficient means of extraction or tethering.” However, the applicant notes in several emergencies, “throw ropes” were not present. Throw ropes can be considered a solution to extraction of people who have fallen through ice.
Additionally, the applicant’s “industry praise and recognition” have been taken under consideration.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS MENEZES whose telephone number is (571)272-5225. The examiner can normally be reached on M - F 7:30 -4 PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Daniel Cahn can be reached on 571-270-5616. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Marcus Menezes/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634