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 filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Priority: Applicant and Examiner agree that the first time the elected species needs to be disclosed. Examiner notes that application GB 2312026.4, filed 8/6/2023, is the first time the elected subject matter was filed; the elected subject matter was not presented in the parent case 16/236569 or GB1820167.3. No claims are allowable, and therefore the priority date of individual claims do not need to be discerned at this time.
IDS: Applicant has cited the GB patents in an IDS. Applicant did not include a copy of these patents, however, examiner will include the copies of these patents in an IDS to reduce workload for the applicant.
Corresponding UK claims: What the UK patent office does is not germane to the USPTO, and the USPTO is not required to act in the same manner as the UK patent office.
No search burden: Applicant elected “without traverse” on 6/10/2025. Further, the restriction was final on 6/26/2025 with the non-final rejection. Therefore, arguments regarding “search burden” aimed at challenging the restriction are no longer appropriate.
Connector v Attacher: Examiner notes that “attacher” is not utilized in the claims, however applicant utilizes this both terms in the specification. Because applicant uses both terms in the specification, examiner had assumed that they had different scopes. Applicant’s later citation of page 74, line 28 that “any disclosure…of an attacher is disclosure of a connector” is persuasive. This does not allow applicant to claim both terms; this only allows applicant’s claimed “attacher” to refer to both “attacher” and “connector” in the specification. Claiming both terms violates MPEP608.01(o) “use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted”.
Claim 1 “connector”: Applicant has broadened the scope of claim 1 by removing the narrower term “pincher connector” and using a broader term “connector”.
Claim 1 “structural definition and operability”: Applicant repeatedly refers to reference Werntz, which was not utilized in the non-final rejection, and therefore any discussion of Werntz is erroneous and/or superfluous. The non-final rejection issued on 6/26/2025 rejected the claims in view of references Ivey and Gaupp. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Bracelet body of claim 25: Examiner notes that “shape…configured to prevent rotation” is still not definite, as applicant has not disclosed what shape(s) meet the requirement “configured to prevent rotation”. Examiner agrees that applicant is allowed to claim structure by claiming the function of the structure; however, applicant has not positively correlated any shape/structure to this function. Further, the use of “configured to prevent”, where the “configuration” is separate than “shape”, is not definite either. The record is not clear what structure the “configuration” refers to, since it is not a shape. Therefore, the indefiniteness issues regarding this phrase are rejected below.
Regarding “operable with”, the indefiniteness issue in claim 25 is regarding the fact that the bracelet body is part of the “bracelet stabilizing bracelet device”, and therefore, the record is not clear how “bracelet stabilizing bracelet device is operable” with itself. Please see indefiniteness rejection below.
Priority UK applications: What the UK patent office does is not germane to the USPTO, and the USPTO is not required to act in the same manner as the UK patent office. Arguments of this nature are not relevant to the instant application. Further, reference Werntz is not used for the art rejection of these claims.
Reference Ivey: Applicant has amended the claims to require “a rigid shape” in claim 1, which was not previously required. Further, applicant’s new claim 25 states the bracelet body “being of a shape and structure configured to prevent rotation around the wrist of the user”. Examiner notes that applicant’s amendments require further search and consideration, and have rendered new art to be used in the rejection.
Claim 7: claim 7 is cancelled. Arguments regarding cancelled claims do not forward prosecution.
Claim 22 Combination Ivey in view of Gaupp: examiner notes that the claim amendments have required further search and consideration, and these references are not utilized together.
OTHER NOTES:
“pincher connectors” presence in the parent case: Applicant argues the generic term “connector” is shown in the parent cases. Applicant’s elected embodiment and instant claim 25 require “pincher connector”, which was not shown in the parent cases. Further, applicant is not able to change the elected species by amending the claims. Examiner suggests claiming structure of the elected embodiment (Species B figure 15, subspecies 6 figs 41-42) to forward prosecution.
Elected embodiment: Applicant has elected species B (bracelet of figure 15), subspecies 6 (pincher connector of figures 41-42). Applicant previously had claims/arguments regarding the clasp of the connector, and applicant no longer has claims regarding the clasp of the pincher connector.
Fixed position: Applicant asserts “fixed position” requires what is shown in the elected embodiment figures 41-42, that the pincher connector is unitary with the bracelet. Examiner notes that this is not the case. “Fixed position” is broad, and can be “fixed” by any known means. The claimed term “fixed position” does not require the structure shown in the elected embodiment.
Which figures are covered by the elected embodiment: Applicant again comments on the scope of the elected bracelet species and the pincher connector subspecies. Applicant does not claim any pincher connector structure specific to the inner workings of the pincher connector, and as of right now, the applicant’s assertion of the scope of the election is irrelevant. Should applicant claim structure that is specific to the interior of the pincher connector, then examiner and applicant can determine what figures were elected or intended to be elected by applicant.
Claims 17-18: These claims are cancelled, any discussion of them does not further prosecution.
Pinch dimensions: “pinch dimension” is not claimed, any discussion of them does not further prosecution. Applicant does claim “dimension”, but since the term “dimension” is broad and definite, there are no indefiniteness issues with the current claim language.
Specification amendments: Amendments to the specification are only made if the amendments are clear as to where they are located. Applicant’s specification is 149 pages. Examiner has entered the specification amendments of 12/29/2025.
Attachment arrangement: Applicant does not claim any attachment arrangement, any discussion of them does not further prosecution.
Rejoinder: Applicant is listed as in inventor, not as the agent. Examiner suggests using a US Patent agent or attorney. Examiner has assumed that applicant is involved in the invention of the new subject matter of figures 15-52. If applicant is not the inventor of the newly disclosed subject matter, applicant should no longer be listed as an inventor. Please see MPEP2109(II) to determine if applicant is, in fact, an inventor. Applicant is currently being treated as a pro se, since neither inventor is a registered agent with the USPTO. Rejoinder can only occur if a generic claim is allowable (MPEP821.04a). No claims are currently allowable.
Patent protection…not limited to the elected species: Examiner notes that applicant is attempting to allow generic claims, providing for rejoinder. No currently pending claim is generic enough to cover all species. Also, no claims are allowable. Therefore, there is no patent protection at this time; only “patent pending” protection is available to applicant at this time.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
The instant case cites to GB2312026.4, filed August 6, 2023, which includes the elected subject matter. This filing date is before the instant filing of August 7, 2023. Therefore, the date of the instant elected subject matter is August 6, 2023, since it was not filed before this date.
Specification
Specification amendments of 12/29/2025 are entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 26, 27, 31 objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant is superfluous in a manner that confuses the scope of the claims.
Regarding claim 26, applicant claims “the bracelet stabilizing bracelet device is operable with the pincher connector being in a fixed position relative to the bracelet body of the bracelet stabilizing bracelet device”. Examiner notes that applicant again is being superfluous, using the term “bracelet stabilizing bracelet device” three times in a claim that does not require it in any location other than the preamble. Examiner notes that Claim 26 is equivalent to “a bracelet stabilizing device as claimed in claim 25, wherein the pincher connector is fixed to the bracelet body”.
Regarding claim 27, applicant includes “bracelet stabilizing bracelet device” when it is not required. “further comprising” after “claim 25” would be sufficient.
Regarding claim 31, applicant claims “a portion that extends from the bracelet body of the bracelet stabilizing bracelet device, said portion that extends from the bracelet body comprising the pincher connector and the surrounding connector that is not a pincher connector”. The record is not clear how the “portion” is distinct from the “pincher connector”. Figure 41 indicates that the pincher connector itself extends from the bracelet body. Examiner assumes that claim 31 means “bracelet stabilizing device of claim 27, wherein the pincher connector extends from the bracelet body”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 22, 24-28, 31-41 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 25, applicant states “bracelet stabilizing bracelet device”. Examiner notes that the article is a “device”, for the purpose of “bracelet stabilizing”. However, the second “bracelet” is not further limiting. Examiner notes that the device includes a “bracelet body”, which, if this is what the second “bracelet” refers to, the second “bracelet” is not necessary. The device is defined as having a bracelet body. The preamble would most clearly be assumed to mean “a bracelet stabilizing device, comprising”.
Further, applicant claims a connector (or pincher connector) is “to facilitate attaching the bracelet stabilizing bracelet device to another bracelet”. Again, the “bracelet stabilizing bracelet device” is the preamble, meaning the “bracelet stabilizing bracelet device” is defined by the bracelet body and the connector/pincher connector. For this reason, examiner assumes that the connector/pincher connector is “to facilitate attaching the bracelet body to another bracelet”.
Regarding claim 25, Applicant claims “bracelet stabilizing bracelet device is operable with the bracelet body”. Examiner notes that the bracelet stabilizing bracelet device (preamble) is defined by the bracelet body, therefore, this phrase says the bracelet body is operable with itself. Further, the applicant claims “shape and structure” configured to prevent rotation. Therefore, the “structure” is a feature that is not the shape. Applicant does not clearly state or disclose what “structure” could be that is “configured to prevent rotation”. Therefore, Examiner assumes that applicant’s lines 2-3 are intended to be “bracelet body, for being worn around a wrist of a user, being of a shape configured to prevent rotation”.
Regarding claims 27, 28, 31, 32, 34, 40, applicant claims “surrounding connector that is not a pincher connector”, which is only disclosed as part 646. This is shown in the elected embodiment.
Regarding claim 31, applicant claims “a portion that extends from the bracelet body of the bracelet stabilizing bracelet device, said portion that extends from the bracelet body comprising the pincher connector and the surrounding connector that is not a pincher connector”. The record is not clear how the “portion” is distinct from the “pincher connector”. Figure 41 indicates that the pincher connector itself extends from the bracelet body. Examiner assumes that claim 31 means “bracelet stabilizing device of claim 27, wherein the pincher connector extends from the bracelet body”.
Regarding claim 34, applicant claims the device is operable when the pincher connector and the “surrounding connector” is in a fixed position relative to the bracelet body. The record is not clear how this further limits the structure of claim 32. The “surrounding connectors” are on the extension, and the extension is the pincher connector. Therefore, the “surrounding connectors” are already extensions of the pincher connector, which is already fixed position relative to the bracelet body. The record is not clear how claim 34 further limits the structure.
Dependent claims inherit the same issues from parent claims and do not resolve any indefinite issues.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 22, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by 5193365 Nelson.
Regarding claim 1, Nelson discloses a bracelet stabilizing (“fitted snugly” column 3 line 18) bracelet (assuming that this refers to having the bracelet body, see 112b above) device, comprising:
a bracelet body 4, for being worn around a wrist of a user (figure 1), wherein the bracelet body 4 is operable in a rigid shape (shape in an oval, figure 2, “rigid” based on materials of “durable plastic or other suitable material” column 4 line 23) to prevent rotation around the wrist of the user (oval shape and “fitted snugly” prevents rotation around the wrist, shown in figure 1); and
PNG
media_image1.png
802
327
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a connector (2 and 3), to facilitate attaching the bracelet stabilizing bracelet device (examiner assumes applicant means “bracelet body”, see 112b above) to another bracelet (1, as shown in figure 1), to prevent the other bracelet from rotating around the wrist of the user (a chain is one of applicant’s disclosed “connectors”, and therefore, functions as claimed by applicant).
Note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. MPEP 2114. Examiner notes the phrases in italics above, and throughout the action, are considered intended use. Examiner contends that the structure capable of performing the intended use is met in the prior art, and is described how the structure disclosed performs the claimed functions in the parentheses; therefore, all italicized language is considered and shown in the prior art. Further, examiner notes that the disclosed structure is capable of performing the intended use claimed by applicant.
Regarding claim 22, Nelson discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the bracelet body 4 is adjustable in dimension (“clam shelled around the individual wrist” column 3 line 18, allows for different sizes of wrist within the “clam shell”).
Regarding claim 24, Nelson discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the connector (chain) is a pincher connector (no structural difference), to pinch a portion of another bracelet (connector 2 is “permanently attached to the sleeve 1” column 3 line 35, and therefore the “pinch” may be a cut chain link with the sleeve 1 between them and welded… which is one method of a “permanent attachment” of Nelson).
Claim(s) 25-28, 31-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by 446616 Thomas.
Regarding claim 25, Thomas discloses bracelet stabilizing (intended purpose of the bracelet body and pincher connector) bracelet (intended manner of wearing) device, comprising:
PNG
media_image2.png
505
812
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a bracelet body (h and a) for being worn around a wrist of a user (“wrist of a prisoner” page 2 line 37), wherein the (assumed to be bracelet body B) being of a shape and structure (figure 1) configured to prevent rotation around the wrist of the user (same structure as applicant’s figure 3); and
a pincher connector (a and I) to pinch a portion of another bracelet (capable of pinching another surface between I and a, or go through a hole of a chain bracelet depending on the size of the chain), to facilitate attaching the (assumed to be bracelet body) to the other bracelet (another/other bracelet are assumed to be referring to the same, not positively claimed, bracelet), to prevent the other bracelet from rotating around the wrist of the user (has structure of a pincher connector similar to applicant’s figure 12).
Regarding claim 26, Thomas discloses a bracelet stabilizing bracelet device as claimed in claim 25, wherein, the bracelet stabilizing bracelet device is operable with the pincher connector (a and i) being in a fixed position, relative to the bracelet body of the bracelet stabilizing bracelet device (since the A portion is unitary with bracelet body section a, and I portion is unitary with bracelet body section h, best shown in figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 27, Thomas discloses a bracelet stabilizing bracelet device as claimed in claim 25, also comprising a surrounding connector that is not a pincher connector (k and j).
Regarding claim 28 Thomas discloses a bracelet stabilizing bracelet device as claimed in claim 26, also comprising a surrounding connector that is not a pincher connector (k and j), the bracelet stabilizing bracelet device being operable with both the pincher connector (d and i) and the surrounding connector that is not a pincher connector (k and j) being in a fixed position, relative to the bracelet body of the bracelet stabilizing bracelet device (k and j are unitary with parts A and i).
Regarding claim 31, Thomas discloses a bracelet stabilizing bracelet device as claimed in claim 27, the pincher connector (a and i) and the surrounding connector (k and j) that is not a pincher connector extends from the bracelet body (h and a).
Regarding claim 32, Thomas discloses a bracelet stabilizing bracelet device as claimed in claim 31, wherein the surrounding connector that is not a pincher connector (k and j) is located further along the portion that extends from the bracelet body, further from the bracelet body, than the pincher connector (j and k protrude from the pincher connector away from the bracelet body (h and a).
Regarding claim 33, Thomas discloses a bracelet stabilizing bracelet device as claimed in claim 32, wherein the pincher connector (a and i) in a fixed position, relative to the bracelet body (unitary with the bracelet body halves).
Regarding claim 34, Thomas discloses a bracelet stabilizing bracelet device as claimed in claim 32, wherein the bracelet stabilizing bracelet device is operable with both the pincher connector and the surrounding connector that is not a pincher connector being in a fixed position, relative to the bracelet body of the bracelet stabilizing bracelet device. Examiner notes that the previous claims already require the “surrounding connectors” to extend from the pincher connectors opposite the bracelet body. Thomas discloses this structure.
Regarding claim 35, Thomas discloses a bracelet stabilizing bracelet device as claimed in claim 25, wherein a portion (portion D) or a whole of at least one engaging portion of the pinching connector (a and i) is deformable (portion D is a spring and is deformable).
Regarding claim 36, Thomas discloses a bracelet stabilizing bracelet device as claimed in claim 25, wherein there is provided a deformable element (portion D), the deformable element being a separate component, a portion or a whole of at least one engaging portion of the pincher connector being deformable by way of the deformable element.
Regarding claim 37, Thomas discloses a bracelet stabilizing bracelet device as claimed in claim 36, wherein the deformable element (portion D) is removably attachable (“secured in any suitable manner to the outer face”) as part of the pincher connector (a and i).
Regarding claim 38, Thomas discloses a bracelet stabilizing bracelet device as claimed in claim 36, wherein there is provided more than one said deformable element (l and m), wherein, of the more than one said deformable element (l and m), there are a plurality of deformable elements that each provide different predefined spacing between opposing engaging portions of the pincher connector.
Regarding claim 39, Thomas discloses a bracelet stabilizing bracelet device as claimed in claim 25, wherein the pincher connector (a and i) is rotatable from a pinching mode (closed) to a non-pinching mode (open), and vice versa.
Regarding claim 40, Thomas discloses a bracelet stabilizing bracelet device as claimed in claim 25, also comprising a surrounding connector that is not a pincher connector (K and j) , wherein opening and closing the surrounding connector that is not a pincher connector also opens and closes the pincher connector (in the manner disclosed in page 2, lines 5-13 “projection j which forms a thumb piece, against which the officer presses his thumb to open the nipper jaws…fingerhold k for the reception of the little finger of the officer”).
Regarding claim 41, Thomas discloses a bracelet stabilizing bracelet device as claimed in claim 25, wherein the bracelet body of the bracelet stabilizing bracelet device is adjustable in dimension (open and close).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see 892.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 EMILY M MORGAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4260. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8-5 MST.
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, Jason San can be reached at (571)272-6531. 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.
/EMILY M MORGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677