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 .
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 4, 5, and 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 4, lines 5-8, “an outer rim”; “each opposed edge”; “each outer ring”; the outer rim”; and “a pair of outer rings” are unclear to how these relate to “a plurality of outer rims”; “an opposed edge”; and “a plurality of outer rings” cited earlier in the claim.
Claim 4, lines 11-14, “an inner rim”; “each opposing edge”; “each inner ring”; and “the inner ring” are unclear to how these relate to “a plurality of inner rims”; “an opposing edge”; and “a plurality of inner rings” cited earlier in the claim.
Claims 5 and 9 have similar issues as claim 4.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kutnyak (4326561) in view of Miller, III (2011/0083898).
Kutnyak discloses a shielded extension cord device (Fig. 4) comprising an electrical cord comprising at least two conducting wires (col. 3, line 67); and a sheath positioned around the electrical cord, wherein the sheath comprises a plurality of sections, wherein the sections are pivotally interconnected and substantially rigid. It is noted that since the sheath of Kutnyak comprises structure and material as claimed, the sheath is bendable along its length but substantially incompressible along its diameter (re-claims 1 and 5).
Kutnyak does not disclose the device comprising a plug attached to a first end of the electrical cord and a socket attached to a second end of the electrical cord such that the socket is electrically engaged to the plug (re-claims 1 and 5).
Miller, III discloses an extension electrical cord device comprising an electrical cord; a plug (106) attached to a first end of the electrical cord and a socket (104) attached to a second end of the electrical cord such that the socket is electrically engaged to the plug.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to respectively attach the plug and socket as taught by Miller, III to the first end and second end of Kutnyak’s electrical cord to meet the specific use of the resulting device.
Re-claims 2 and 5, Kutnyak discloses the sheath comprising metal (col. 2 lines 49-50 and lines 65-66).
Re-claims 3 and 5, Kutnyak discloses the sheath comprising steel, but not stainless steel. However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use stainless steel for the sheath of Kutnyak since stainless steel is well-known in the art for its corrosion-resistant.
Re-claims 4 and 5, Kutnyak discloses the sections comprising a plurality of outer rings (22B); a plurality of outer rims (20B and 21B), wherein each of the outer rims is attached to an opposed edge of a respective one of the outer rings such that each of the outer rims is attached to each respective opposed edge of each of the outer rings, wherein the outer rims extend radially toward the electrical cord; a plurality of inner rings (18B), each of the inner rings being bracketed by a pair of the outer rings; and a plurality of inner rims (16B and 17B), wherein each of the inner rims is attached to an opposing edge of a respective one of the inner rings such that each of the inner rims is attached to each respective opposing edge of each of the inner rings, wherein the inner rims of each of the inner rings extend radially away from the electrical cord and into a pair of the outer rings such that the inner rings are pivotally engaged to the pair of the outer rings.
Claims 6-9 are method counterparts of claims 1-4.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAU N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1980. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7am to 5:30pm.
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, Imani N Hayman can be reached at 571-270-5528. 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.
/CHAU N NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841