Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 § 102
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Claims 1, 2, 6, 12, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zazzara et al. (US 5,131,707 A).
Regarding claim 1, Zazzara a lifting device comprising: an elongated cord (30) comprising two free ends (at 31); a jacket (see “coated with plastic” in col. 3 line 36); and a handle (20); wherein the two free ends of the elongated cord are joined via a fastener (see col. 3 lines 43-61) to form a circular loop, and the handle covers a portion of the elongated cord (see Figure 1); and wherein the jacket covers (the entire cord which would include) a portion of the elongated cord not covered by the handle (see Figures).
Regarding claim 2, Zazzara discloses the lifting device of claim 1, wherein the fastener is an adhesive (see “chemical bonding” and “tape” in col. 3 lines 43-61).
Regarding claim 6, Zazzara discloses the lifting device of claim 1, wherein the handle covers the portion of the elongated cord where joining of the two free ends of the elongated cord occurs (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 12, Zazzara discloses the lifting device of claim 1, wherein the elongated cord is color-coded. The cord of Zazzara would inherently have a color. This limitation does not impart any other structural limitations on the claimed cord.
Regarding claim 15, Zazzara discloses the lifting device of claim 1, wherein the jacket covers the entire elongated cord except for the handle. Zazzara only disclose the cord being coating in plastic, not the handle.
Regarding claim 16, Zazzara discloses the lifting device of claim 11, wherein the jacket covers a portion of the elongated cord that is opposite the handle. If the entire cord is coated as Zazzara discloses, then the portion opposite the handle would also be coated.
Regarding claim 17, Zazzara discloses a method of using a lifting device to move an item, the method comprising: hooking a jacket portion (see “coated with plastic” in col. 3 line 36) of the lifting device onto the item (see Figure 3); and grasping the lifting device by a padded handle to lift and move the item (see Figure 3 and “less rigid…rubber tubing” in col. 3 lines 6-7).
Regarding claim 18, Zazzara discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the lifting device comprises an elongated cord (30) comprising two free ends (at 31); the jacket portion (see “coated with plastic” in col. 3 line 36); and the padded handle (20, see “less rigid…rubber tubing” in col. 3 lines 6-7); wherein the two free ends of the elongated cord are joined via a fastener (see col. 3 lines 43-61) to form a circular loop, and the padded handle covers a portion of the elongated cord (see Figure 1); and wherein the jacket portion covers (the entire cord which would include) a portion of the elongated cord not covered by the handle (see Figures).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zazzara et al. (US 5,131,707 A) as applied above in view of Estey (US 9,271,485 B2) and Okura et al. (JP 2003164368 A).
Regarding claim 3, Zazzara discloses the lifting device of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the two free ends of the elongated cord are coated with liquid latex prior to being joined to prevent fraying. Even with the plastic coating as taught by Zazzara, it is not clear just how clean the ends of the cord might be after cutting to length - whether they may be subject to fraying or not. Estey teaches that it was already known in the art to coat the ends of a cord with a melted/liquid plastic to prevent fraying (see col. 4 lines 52-56). Similarly, Okura teaches that rubber can be added to the ends of a cord to prevent fraying (see claim 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have coated the ends of the Zazzara cord with a melted/liquid material, as taught by Estey, in this case choosing to try latex, a well-known rubber, where rubber was already known in the art to be suitable for such use, as taught by Okura.
7. Claims 4, 5, 7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zazzara et al. (US 5,131,707 A) as applied above in view of Sylvanowicz (US 2013/0092101 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Zazzara discloses the lifting device of claim 1, and further discloses the cord being made of nylon (see col. 3 lines 33-35) and be reasonably heavy enough gauge so as to not dig into a user’s shoulder (see col. 4 lines 13-16) but fails to specifically disclose wherein the elongated cord is composed of one-half (1/2) inch double braided rope.
Regarding claim 5, Zazzara discloses the lifting device of claim 1, and further discloses the cord being made of nylon (see col. 3 lines 33-35) and be reasonably heavy enough gauge so as to not dig into a user’s shoulder (see col. 4 lines 13-16) but fails to specifically disclose wherein the elongated cord is composed of five-eighths (5/8) inch double braided rope.
Sylvanowicz teaches that it was already known in the art for the cord of a pulling device to include ½” double-braided nylon rope (see [0007]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have made the cord of Zazzara from any known and suitable cord structure, in this case choosing to use a ½” double braided nylon rope, as taught by Sylvanowicz. It further would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have chosen between different gauges of the cord, in this case including 5/8” cord as well, as such diameter would just as easily prevent digging into the user’s shoulder as originally intended by Zazzara. Furthermore, 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 7, Zazzara discloses the lifting device of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the handle is 10 inches and composed of foam.
Zazzara teaches the handle being made from rigid or less rigid materials and also teaches that the length of the handle may vary (see col. 3 lines 2-8 and lines 23-24). Regarding the handle being made of foam, Sylvanowicz teaches that it was already known in the art for the handle of a pulling device to be made of foam to permit soft gripping (see [0009]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have made the Zazzara handle out of foam, the motivation being to provide a sot grip, as taught by Sylvanowicz. Regarding the length of the handle, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have varied the length of the Zazzara handle, in this case 10 inches, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. Zazzara himself contemplates different handle lengths and a change in size is also generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 13, Zazzara discloses the lifting device of claim 12, but fails to disclose wherein the color-coding is white, green blue, or red. While the Zazzara cord would inherently include a color, Zazzara does not disclose which color it is. Sylvanowicz teaches that it was already known in the art for the cord of a pulling device to come in seven colors (see Abstract). Given that white, green, blue, and red are well known and popular colors, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the Zazzara cord in a variety of known colors, as taught by Sylvanowicz, in this case any of white, green, blue, or red. A change in color is within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
8. Claims 8-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zazzara et al. (US 5,131,707 A).
Regarding claim 8, Zazzara discloses the lifting device of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the lifting device is 54 inches in circumference.
Regarding claim 9, Zazzara discloses the lifting device of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the lifting device is 62 inches in circumference.
Regarding claim 10, Zazzara discloses the lifting device of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the lifting deice is 70 inches in circumference.
Regarding claim 11, Zazzara discloses the lifting device of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the lifting device is 80 inches in circumference.
Zazzara fails to disclose any of these exact lengths specifically, but does disclose that the length of the cord can vary from about 10-60 inches or more (see col. 4 lines 4-7). Based on this disclosure alone, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have made the Zazzara cord any of 54”, 62”, 70”, or 80”. Furthermore, a change in size is also generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 13, Zazzara discloses the lifting device of claim 12, but fails to disclose wherein the color-coding is white, green blue, or red. While the Zazzara cord would inherently include a color, Zazzara does not disclose which color it is. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the Zazzara cord with any known color, in this case any of white, green, blue, or red. A change in color is within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant's arguments filed 10/9/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued that the plastic coating taught by Zazzara does not constitute a jacket component separate from the cord let alone a jacket covering a portion of the elongated cord not covered by the handle. First, “component separate from the cord” is not found in the present claims. Second, even a plastic coating for a cord is a component separate from the cord and added to the cord. Finally, looking to the originally filed specification, paragraph [0042] discloses the jacket being liquid latex that hardens after being dried, i.e. a coating. Nothing in the present claims structurally distinguishes the claimed jacket from the plastic coating of Zazzara. The plastic coating of Zazarra would presumably cover the entire cord which would include a portion of the cord not covered by the handle.
Conclusion
10. 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.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN MATTHEW LARSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8649. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-3pm. 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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached on (571)272-4544. 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.
/JUSTIN M LARSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734 10/28/25