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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 5, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-9 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the longitudinal axis" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the same metal wire" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the metal wire" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the circles" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the axis" in line 2. It is unclear if “the axis” refers back to the “spring axis” or is a different axis. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner has interpreted that “the axis” is the “spring axis”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the longitudinal axis" in line 10 and “the finger” in lines 5 and 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner has interpreted that “the finger” is the “the gate”.
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.
Claims 1,4, and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by FR 2835578 A1, as evidenced by RS (https://uk.rs-online.com/web/content/discovery/ideas-and-advice/compression-springs-guide).
As to claim 1, FR 2835578 A1 discloses a carabiner (see Description on page 1 of FR 2835578 A1 English Translation), as illustrated in Figure 1, comprising a body (1) having a C shape (see Abstract on page 1 of FR 2835578 A1 English Translation), a gate (5) mounted rotatable, with respect to the body, between an open position and a closed position, the gate moving toward a connecting portion of the body when the gate moves from the closed position to the open position, the gate defining a cavity (25), a pusher (28) and a spring (5), the spring and the pusher being fixedly mounted on one another to form a monolithic assembly; the pusher pressing on the body, the pusher being fitting in a dedicated space (29) of the body to block one end of the pusher, the spring being installed in the cavity of the gate and pressing on the gate and on the pusher to bias the gate in rotation to the closed position, the spring being a compression spring (See page 5 of FR 2835578 A1 English Translation) having a spring axis extending along a longitudinal axis of the cavity. However, FR 2835578 A1 does not specify that the compression spring is a coil spring. The compression spring used in FR 2835578 A1 is known to be a coil spring as claimed, as evidenced by RS (see page 1 of attached PDF of RS’ website).
With claim 4, the compression spring defines a circular cylinder and wherein the pusher is apertured perpendicularly to an axis comprising a center for each circular member of the compression spring.
With claim 6, it is best interpreted from the Figure 1 that the pusher is L-shaped in a direction of observation perpendicular to the spring axis of the compression spring.
With claim 7, the pusher is included in a plane that contains a diameter of the spring.
With claim 8, the pusher is different from a coil spring.
As to claim 9, FR 2835578 A1 discloses a method for manufacturing a carabiner (see Description on page 1 of FR 2835578 A1 English Translation) comprising the following steps providing a C-shaped body (1) (see Abstract on page 1 of FR 2835578 A1 English Translation); providing a gate (5) rotatably mounted, relative to the body, between an open position and a closed position, the gate moving toward a connecting portion of the body when a movement of the gate from the closed position to the open position takes place, the gate defining a cavity (25) designed to house a spring (5); providing a monolithic assembly formed by the spring and a pusher (28) that are fixedly fitted on one another, the spring being a compression spring; installing the monolithic assembly in the cavity, the spring being installed in the cavity of the gate, the spring extending along a longitudinal axis of the cavity, the pusher pressing on the body, the pusher being housed in a dedicated space (29) of the body to block one end of the pusher, the assembly urging the gate in rotation towards the closed position. However, FR 2835578 A1 does not specify that the compression spring is a coil spring. The compression spring used in FR 2835578 A1 is known to be a coil spring as claimed, as evidenced by RS (see page 1 of attached PDF of RS’ website).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 2835578 A1.
As to claims 2-3, FR 2835578 A1 discloses the spring and the pusher are formed as unitary wire, except for the specific material to be metal. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to construct the spring and pusher of metal, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
With claim 3, the wire has a circular section and wherein the wire has a constant diameter from one end of the spring to an opposite end of the spring and from one end of the pusher to an opposite end of the pusher.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Christianson’190, Petzl, Chu, Hsu, and Christianson’579 are cited as being relevant art, because each prior art disclose a carabiner comprising a C-shaped body and a gate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN VU whose telephone number is (571)272-1961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 am - 4:30 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, Gene Crawford can be reached at (571) 272-6911. 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.
STEPHEN VU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3651
/STEPHEN A VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3651