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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-11, 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Reed (US Pub. D314,116).
Regarding claim 1, Reed discloses a strap portion spaced apart by two anchor portions, the strap portion configured to wrap around the animal's leg and the two anchor portions being wider than the strap portion (Fig. 3, pillow has a central portion and two end portions spaced apart from the narrower central portion);
wherein at least one of the two anchor portions has a foam cushion (The object is a pillow which is known in the art to be made of foam) to provide an increased thickness compared with the strap portion (Fig. 4, central portion is thinner than the end portions);
wherein when the strap portion and the two anchor portions are all lying flat in the same plane, the two anchor portions are spaced 180 degrees apart (See Figs. 2-5);
wherein each anchor portion of the two anchor portions has a tapered section adjacent to the strap portion and each tapered section narrows towards the strap portion (Fig. 3, the pillow tapers towards in width towards the central portion and away from the end portions), and wherein, in use, the sling holds the animal's leg in a raised position to treat and/or shoe a foot of the animal's raised leg by: (i) the strap portion wrapping around the animal's leg, and (ii) the two anchor portions being positioned and held comfortably between a person's legs, thereby supporting the animal's leg in the raised position (The pillow is flexible and could be used in this manner).
Regarding claim 3, Reed discloses wherein each anchor portion is shaped so that the anchor portions are adapted to abut each other (See id).
Regarding claim 4, Reed discloses wherein each anchor portion has a tapered section adjacent the strap portion (Fig. 3, the pillow tapers towards the central portion and away from the end portions), and when the anchor portions are positioned between the person's legs and abut each other the tapered section of each anchor portion defines a substantially V-shaped recess (The pillow is flexible and could be used in this manner).
Regarding claim 5, Reed discloses wherein each anchor portion has at least one flat side (Fig. 2, end portions are substantially flat), wherein the at least one flat side of each anchor portion is adapted to abut the at least one flat side of the other anchor portion (The pillow is flexible and could be used in this manner).
Regarding claim 6, Reed discloses wherein at least one of the anchor portions and the strap portion are elongate (Figs. 2-5, the pillow is substantially elongate).
Regarding claim 7, Reed discloses wherein both of the anchor portions have the foam cushion (The object is a pillow which is known in the art to be made of foam).
Regarding claim 8, Reed discloses wherein the strap portion is adapted to wrap around a pastern of the animal's leg (The pillow is flexible and could be used in this manner) and a width of the strap portion is less than a length of the pastern so that a hoof and fetlock restricts movement of the sling along the animal's leg (Fig. 1, using the user’s neck for scale, it is assumed the width of the central portion is approximately 3 inches which is less than the length of a pastern).
Regarding claim 10, Reed discloses wherein each anchor portion is elongate (Figs. 2-5, the pillow is substantially elongate).
Regarding claim 15, Reed discloses wherein the foam cushion extends into the tapered section (The entire object is a pillow which is known in the art to be made of foam).
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.
Claim(s) 9, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reed (US Pub. D314,116).
Regarding claim 9, Reed discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the strap portion has a length between 20cm to 30cm, and the strap portion has a width between 1cm to 5cm and the sling has at least one hook or loop located at an end of the sling. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to designate the dimensions of the pillow to be as described as it would also be suited for supporting the neck and head of the user, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 11, Reed discloses the claimed invention except for wherein each anchor portion has a length between 20cm to 30cm, each anchor portion has a width between 2cm to 12cm, each anchor portion has a thickness between 2cm to 10cm. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to designate the dimensions of the pillow to be as described as it would also be suited for supporting the neck and head of the user, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
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 HENRY HOOPER MUDD whose telephone number is (571)272-5941. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Joshua Michener can be reached at 5712721467. 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.
/HENRY HOOPER MUDD/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642