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 .
Response to Amendment
In the amendment filed 1/27/2026, the following has occurred: claim 23 has been amended; claims 1, 4-6, 13-17, 21, 23-25, and 29 are currently pending.
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 23-25 and 29 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 23 recites “each subloop being defined by a closed path of a same continuous loop material”, which is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by this limitation. This language is not present in Applicant’s specification, and since each of the loops are continuously adjustable, Examiner requests clarification on what would be considered a closed path vs. a non-closed path. Dependent claims 24, 25, and 29 are likewise rejected.
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, 4-6, 17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodger (US 5901668 A), in view of Hetrick (US 8469864 B2).
Regarding Claim 1
Goodger teaches a pet leash (main line (10)) comprising: a first loop (handle (8)); and a second loop having a different size than the first loop (swiveling portion (1)) and comprising at least two pet connectors (sub lines (12), Fig. 1) including a hook portion (hook portion of detachable clips (14), or alternatively, Examiner notes that although not shown, the hook portion could be the connector portion of the sub lines (12) used to connect to each of the animal collars, Fig. 1) and a slider portion that enables the pet connectors to move freely along the second loop when a force is exerted by a pet connected to the pet connectors (top of detachable clips (14) that slides along swiveling portion (1), Fig. 1, Examiner notes that when a pet pulls while connected to the pet connector, the pet connector can move freely as claimed), wherein the first loop and the second loop are connected to one another such that the first loop and the second loop can flip or rotate around a longitudinal axis of the leash (Col. 2 Lines 23-27 “The swiveling portion 1 is connected to ring 11 by a e.g. a rivet 2 or other rotating connection that allows the ring and the swiveling portion 1 to rotate with respect to one another. A detachable clip 22 or similar connection may be used to connect the main line to the ring”), but does not teach:
a flexible second loop
Hetrick teaches:
a flexible second loop (anchor loop (3112) attached to ring (2911), Col. 11 Line 63 – Col. 12 Line 1 “the material of anchor loop 3112 may include, but is not limited, to a webbing of a natural or synthetic material having strength sufficient to support the weight of a device user. Webbing materials include, but are not limited to, one or more of a nylon, polypropylene or other polymeric fibers”, Fig. 31, 32a)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pet leash of Goodger to additionally include the flexible loop of Hetrick with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for a variety of reasons, such as to allow friction to slow any sudden pulling momentum from the animal or to provide an additional loop that is more shock absorbent than a rigid structure.
Regarding Claim 4
Goodger, in view of Hetrick, teaches the pet leash of claim 1, wherein the second loop is configured to adjust dynamically based on pet movement (Examiner notes that with the flexible loop of Hetrick, the second loop is configured to adjust in the same way as the instant application) and remains independently operable from any central fixed attachment (Examiner notes that when adding the flexible loop of Hetrick to the structure of Goodger, this second loop is independent from any central fixed attachment).
Regarding Claim 5
Goodger, in view of Hetrick, teaches the pet leash of claim 1, wherein at least one of the two of the first or second pet connectors is removably attached to a portion of the multi-pet leash to convert the multi-pet leash to a single pet leash (Goodger: detachable clip (14), Examiner notes that one clip can be removed to convert to a single pet leash).
Regarding Claim 6
Goodger, in view of Hetrick, teaches the pet leash of claim 1, wherein the slider is a fully enclosed element that travels along an uninterrupted track without reliance on an intermediary linking structure and allows a pet connected to the hook portion of the connector to move freely along the second loop (Goodger: Examiner notes that the detachable clips (14), when attached, are fully enclosed and do not rely on an intermediary linking structure to travel freely along the loop).
Regarding Claim 17
Goodger teaches a multi-pet leash (main line (10)) comprising: a first loop (handle (8)); a second loop (swiveling portion (1)) comprising at least two pet connectors (sub lines (12)), each configured to connect to a pet (sub lines (12) configured to attach to an animal collar, Fig. 1); a swivel that connects the first loop to the second loop such that the second loop can flip or rotate in relation to the first loop (Col. 2 Lines 23-27 “The swiveling portion 1 is connected to ring 11 by a e.g. a rivet 2 or other rotating connection that allows the ring and the swiveling portion 1 to rotate with respect to one another. A detachable clip 22 or similar connection may be used to connect the main line to the ring”); and a stopper that limits movement of the at least two pet connectors on the second loop (Examiner notes that the top side (3) of swiveling portion (1) shown in Fig. 2 can be considered a stopper, since the washer (12), rivet (2), etc. would limit movement of the pet connectors), but does not teach:
a flexible second loop
Hetrick teaches:
a flexible second loop (anchor loop (3112) attached to ring (2911), Col. 11 Line 63 – Col. 12 Line 1 “the material of anchor loop 3112 may include, but is not limited, to a webbing of a natural or synthetic material having strength sufficient to support the weight of a device user. Webbing materials include, but are not limited to, one or more of a nylon, polypropylene or other polymeric fibers”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pet leash of Goodger to additionally include the flexible loop of Hetrick with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for a variety of reasons, such as to allow friction to slow any sudden pulling momentum from the animal or to provide an additional loop that is more shock absorbent than a rigid structure.
Regarding Claim 21
Goodger, in view of Hetrick, teaches the multi-pet leash of claim 17, further comprising at least one pet connector including a hook portion (Goodger: hook portion of detachable clips (14), or alternatively, Examiner notes that although not shown, the hook portion could be the connector portion of the sub lines (12) used to connect to each of the animal collars, Fig. 1) and a slider portion that enables the pet connector to move freely along the second loop (Goodger: top of detachable clips (14) that slides along swiveling portion (1), Fig. 1, Examiner notes that when a pet pulls while connected to the pet connector, the pet connector can move freely as claimed).
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodger (US 5901668 A), in view of Hetrick (US 8469864 B2), as applied to claims 1, 4-6, 17, and 21 above, and further in view of Mann (US 6626132 B1).
Regarding Claim 13
Goodger, in view of Hetrick, teaches the pet leash of claim 1, but does not teach:
further comprising an adjustable stopper positioned on the second loop that limits movement of the at least one of the two pet connectors on the second loop
Mann teaches:
an adjustable stopper (adjustable clamp (36a)) positioned on the second loop (herein considered loop (38a)) that limits movement of at least one of the two pet connectors on the second loop (Fig. 1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pet leash of Goodger, in view of Hetrick, with the adjustable stopper taught by Mann with a reasonable expectation of success and with the motivation of providing a means for the user to control how much freedom of movement the pet or pets on the leash can have.
Regarding Claim 14
Goodger, in view of Hetrick, teaches the pet leash of claim 1, but does not teach:
further comprising a length adjustor
Mann teaches:
a length adjustor (adjusting slidable clamp (18) or adjustable clamp (36a), Fig. 1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pet leash of Goodger, in view of Hetrick, with the length adjustor taught by Mann with a reasonable expectation of success and with the motivation of providing a means for the user to adjust the length of the pet leash if desired.
Regarding Claim 15
Goodger, in view of Hetrick and Mann, teaches the pet leash of claim 14, wherein the length adjustor (Mann: adjustable clamp (36a)) comprises a device that overlaps or connects two portions of the second loop (Mann: considered loop (38a)) to one another (Mann: Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 16
Goodger, in view of Hetrick and Mann, teaches the pet leash of claim 14, wherein the length adjustor is a buckle (Mann: clamp (36a) is shown as a buckle, Fig. 1).
Claims 23, 24, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michael M (“Fancy Schmancy Anchors” Post on Mountain Project), in view of Xie (US D801162 S).
Regarding Claim 23
Michael M teaches a pet leash (structure in annotated photo below) comprising: a handle (see annotated photo below); a loop (see annotated photo below); and a removable connector that is securable to a portion of the loop to subdivide the loop into two continuously adjustable subloops (see annotated photo below, Examiner notes that although this photo shows multiple removable connectors dividing the loop into a plurality of loops, each connector is known to subdivide the loop into two continuously adjustable subloops), each subloop being defined by a closed path of a same continuous loop material (see related §112(b) rejection, as best understood by Examiner, Michael M teaches this feature since the structure is the same as that of the instant application), and each subloop including a connector (see annotated photo below) being connected to a pet, such that a user is able to walk the pet (per Applicant’s Remarks (pp. 3), the claims are directed to a leash structure configured for use with a pet, Examiner notes this is intended use of the pet leash structure), but does not teach:
a swivel connector connecting the handle to the loop.
PNG
media_image1.png
749
537
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Photo From “Fancy Schmancy Anchors” Post.
Xie teaches:
a swivel connector (Fig. 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the noted features of Xie with the teachings of Michael M since the combination of the two references is merely simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is, in the substitution of the swivel connector of the secondary reference(s) for hook and corresponding ring of the primary reference. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Examiner notes that having a swivel connector connecting the handle to the loop has the added benefit of increased mobility.
Regarding Claim 24
Michael M, in view of Xie, teaches the pet leash of claim 23, wherein the removable connector is a hook (Michael M: see annotated photo above, Examiner notes that carabiners as shown can be considered hooks).
Regarding Claim 29
Michael M, in view of Xie, teaches the pet leash of claim 23, wherein the removable connector includes a first end and a second end (Michael M: Examiner notes that the removable connector has a top and bottom end), wherein the first end is removably connected to a first portion of the loop (Michael M: bottom end connected to a first portion of the loop via hook and corresponding ring, see annotated photo above) and the second end is slidably connected to a second portion of the loop (Michael M: top end of connector is slidably connected to a second portion of the loop, see annotated photo above).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michael M (“Fancy Schmancy Anchors” Post on Mountain Project), in view of Xie (US D801162 S) as applied to claims 23, 24, and 29 above, and further in view of Moreland (US 20190166983 A1).
Regarding Claim 25
Michael M, in view of Xie, teaches the pet leash of claim 24, but does not teach:
wherein the hook includes two hook end portions.
Moreland teaches:
a hook including two hook end portions (S-biner or S-shaped dual sided carabiner (31, 41), Fig. 4).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the noted features of Moreland with the teachings of the primary reference since the combination of the two references is merely simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is, in the substitution of the dual sided carabiner of the secondary reference for the carabiner of the primary reference. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, as a dual sided carabiner would allow the user to remove the fastener from one portion of the loop without accidentally removing the fastener from the leash entirely, since a separate hook would be used for each connection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (Remarks pp. 5-7) that, in regard to claims 1 and 17, Hetrick is not in the field of pet leashes, nor is the problem addressed by Hetrick related to the claims of the instant application, and is therefore non-analogous art. Applicant argues that Hetrick addresses the problem of preventing movement of a strap during stationary exercise. Examiner notes that although Goodger teaches a pet leash and Hetrick teaches exercise equipment, the purpose of the challenged feature is the same: to transfer loads. As stated on the Non-Final Rejection dated 11/4/2025, Examiner argues that this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with the motivation of allowing friction to slow any sudden pulling momentum from the animal or to provide an additional loop that is more shock absorbent than a rigid structure.
Applicant goes on to argue that Hetrick teaches away from motion, and states that the loop 3112 is designed to restrict movement of elongated member 2920 which would defeat the function that Goodger provides if incorporated therein. Examiner respectfully disagrees. There may exist friction between the two elements, see Col. 5 Lines 20-43 of Hetrick, but there is no indication that movement is completely restricted. Hetrick merely states that when exercising, a slight mis-match in the pulling forces is matched by static friction and the grips do not move. However, it is understood by the disclosure of Hetrick, along with Fig. 13A-C, for example, that with a significantly different force applied, the elongated member 2920 slides through the loop 3112. Examiner maintains that one of ordinary skill in the art would look to this device for guidance, since they are both elongated members moving through an anchor when different forces are applied.
Applicant goes on to argue that one skilled in the art would not be motivated to substitute the swiveling portion 1 of Goodger with the anchor loop 3112 of Hetrick, since the purpose of connecting the detachable clip 14 to the swivel of Goodger is to permit travel along the swiveling portion and the purpose of loop 3112 in Hetrick is to restrict movement. Examiner respectfully notes that although the flexible loop of Hetrick does impart friction on the elongated member, the purpose is not for motion to be completely restricted. If the intent were to prohibit all movement, each side of the elongated member would be attached to the loop individually, without any risk of sliding. Examiner maintains that this substitution does not change the principle of operation of Goodger, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for a variety of reasons, such as to allow friction to slow any sudden pulling momentum from the animal or to provide an additional loop that is more shock absorbent than a rigid structure.
Applicant argues (Remarks pp. 9-10) that, in regard to claims 23-25 and 29, one skilled in the art would not be motivated to combine Michael M with Xie. Specifically, Applicant argues that Michael M relates to cliff climbing equipment where rotation and uncontrolled motion create safety hazards, whereas Xie is a design patent illustrating only an ornamental form of a swivel. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that although Xie does not provide explicit uses of the design of the swivel, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize its use with the structure of Michael M. It is known to use swivels in the field of cliff climbing equipment, as evidenced by PROND Swing Swivel (product page on Amazon.com), which presents a swivel connector specifically used for this purpose.
Applicant also argues that neither reference is in the field of pet walking devices, nor reasonably pertinent to the problem of enabling dynamic, load-responsive movement of animals during walking. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the structure of the prior art references teach all of the limitations of claims 23-25 and 29. Examiner notes that the instant application is merely comprised of a plurality of straps, fasteners, and connectors which can be used in a wide variety of applications. The structure of Michael M meets all of the claimed limitations except the type of hook. Examiner then relied upon Xie to simply teach a different kind of hook, which Examiner notes would have been prima facie obvious and the motivation has nothing to do with either of the references being changed structurally to support a pet leash, making the rejection proper. Examiner respectfully notes that, besides stating the prior art is unrelated to a pet leash, Applicant does not provide any reason why the aforementioned prior art references do not teach the structural limitations of the claims.
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 Katherine June Walter whose telephone number is (571)272-6150. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached on (571)272-6909. 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.
/K.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647