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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/398,813 (filed on 08/17/2022) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the personal article (recited in claims 5 and 14), must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities that requires appropriate corrections:
In paragraph 0030, line 2-3, the limitation “the housing 19” should read -- the housing 12 --.
Claim Objections
Claims 10, 14-17, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities that requires appropriate corrections:
In claim 10, line 12-13, the limitation “with said line opening with said eyelet redirecting said line…and providing a smooth surface” should read -- with said line opening, wherein said eyelet redirects said line…and provides a smooth surface --.
In claim 10, line 15, the limitation “said housing” should read -- said retractor housing --.
In claim 14, line 1-2, the limitation “claim 1, further comprising a connector capable” should read -- claim 1, wherein said connector is capable --.
In claim 15, line 1-2, the limitation “said connector mechanism comprises” should read -- said connector comprises --.
In claim 16, line 1-2, the limitation “said first connector part” should read -- said first part --.
In claim 16, line 2-3, the limitation “said second connector part” should read -- said second part --.
In claim 17, line 7-8, the limitation “said front surface through which said line extends through said front surface at a second direction” should read -- said front surface through which said line extends in a second direction --.
In claim 17, line 10, the limitation “said housing” should read -- said retractor housing --.
In claim 19, line 1-2, the limitation “said smooth surface” should read -- said funnel shaped smooth surface --.
Applicant is advised that should claim 5-6 and 8 be found allowable, claims 14-16 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claim 11-13 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 11 recites the limitation “said anti-friction mechanism” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 limitation “said anti-friction mechanism comprises an eyelet with an opening” (in lines 1-2) renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear if the eyelet in claim 11 is referring to the same eyelet described within parent claim 10, or if it’s referring to another distinct/additional eyelet (in other words, does the claimed retractor system has two separate eyelets, where one of said eyelets forms an anti-friction mechanism?). Clarification by the applicant is required.
Claim 12 depends from claim 11. Subsequently, claim 12 is also rejected as being indefinite for the reason set forth above.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “said anti-friction mechanism” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 limitation “said anti-friction mechanism comprising a smooth surface” (in lines 1-2) renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear if the smooth surface in claim 13 is referring to the same smooth surface described within parent claim 10, or if it’s referring to another distinct/additional smooth surface (in other words, does the claimed retractor system has two separate smooth surfaces, where one smooth surface is provided on an anti-friction mechanism?). Clarification by the applicant is required.
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, 5-6, 14-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cavanaugh (U.S. Patent 4,146,191 A) in view of Palmquist (U.S. Patent 4,846,090 A).
In regards to claim 1, Cavanaugh teach (Figures 1-2) a retractor system (microphone retriever illustrated in figure 1) comprising: a retractor including a retractor housing (front housing half 1 and rear housing half 2) having a front surface (outer flat surface of the front housing half 1 that defines the opening 30 and that contacts the member 36); a line (flexible cord 21); a line retraction mechanism (reel 11 and flat spiral spring 18) provided within the retractor housing (front housing half 1 and rear housing half 2) for urging the retraction of the line (flexible cord 21) in a first direction (a direction along the outer flat surface of the front housing half 1) that is substantially parallel to the front surface (outer flat surface of the front housing half 1); a line opening (opening 30) provided in the front surface (outer flat surface of the front housing half 1), such that the line (flexible cord 21) extends through the line opening (opening 30) in a second direction (a direction along the central axis of the opening 30/brass eyelet 32) that is different from the first direction (a direction along the outer flat surface of the front housing half 1); a connector (member 36) being attached to the line (flexible cord 21); and an eyelet (brass eyelet 32, which reduce frictional resistance on the flexible cord 21 during its movement as disclosed in Col. 4, line 9-10) provided entirely within the retractor housing (front housing half 1 and rear housing half 2; figure 2 clearly illustrate, no parts of the brass eyelet 32 being disposed on the exterior side of the front housing half 1 or extending beyond the outer surface of the front housing half 1, when the brass eyelet 32 is positioned within the opening 30) at a location proximate to the line opening (opening 30), such that the eyelet (brass eyelet 32) redirects the line (flexible cord 21) from the first direction (a direction along the outer flat surface of the front housing half 1) to the second direction (a direction along the central axis of the opening 30/brass eyelet 32) when the line (flexible cord 21) passes through the eyelet (brass eyelet 32); wherein the eyelet (brass eyelet 32) provides a smooth surface (surfaces of the brass eyelet 32 that contacts the flexible cord 21) upon which the line (flexible cord 21) rides when it extends from the retractor housing (front housing half 1 and rear housing half 2) (see also Col. 2, line 33 - Col. 4, line 10). Yet, Cavanaugh does not explicitly disclose, the smooth surface of the eyelet (surfaces of the brass eyelet 32 that contacts the flexible cord 21) being a funnel shaped surface.
However, Palmquist teach (Figures 1-8) a retractor system (10) comprising: a retractor housing (14) with a front surface (38 and 42), a line (20), a line retraction mechanism (16), a line opening (opening in 14 through which 156 of 142 is inserted) provided in said front surface (28 and 42), and an eyelet (142 of 18) positioned at said line opening (opening in 14 through which 156 of 142 is inserted); wherein the eyelet (142 of 18) has a funnel shaped surface (148) that provides a smooth surface (150) upon which the line (20) rides when it extends/reattracts from the retractor housing (14) (see also Col. 3, line 21-33 and Col. 4, line 27-29).
Accordingly, it would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the eyelet in Cavanaugh’s retractor system, with a funnel shaped smooth surface as suggested by Palmquist. This would be advantageous in low-friction and smooth guiding of the line though the eyelet in manner that limits the contact between the line and any sharp edges/corners, during dispensing and retraction of said line; thereby minimizing the damage to the line overtime (e.g. wear/tear or fraying), while also increasing the overall lifespan of said line.
In regards to claim 17, Cavanaugh teach (Figures 1-2) a retractor system (microphone retriever illustrated in figure 1) comprising: a retractor housing (front housing half 1 and rear housing half 2) having a front surface (outer flat surface of the front housing half 1 that defines the opening 30 and that contacts the member 36), and a mounting mechanism (bracket-engaging member 42) for mounting the retractor housing (front housing half 1 and rear housing half 2) to a user (bracket-engaging member 42 can be used to attach the microphone retriever to any structure that includes a complimentary microphone bracket. Examiner notes that “for mounting said retractor housing to a user” is being interpreted as an intended use limitation that describe the intended use of the mounting mechanism in the claimed retractor system; where a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In other words, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim); a line (flexible cord 21) that is retracted into the retractor housing (front housing half 1 and rear housing half 2) under a force (via the flat spiral spring 18) in a first direction (a direction along the outer flat surface of the front housing half 1) which is substantially parallel to the front surface (outer flat surface of the front housing half 1); a line opening (opening 30) provided in the front surface (outer flat surface of the front housing half 1), such that the line (flexible cord 21) extends through the line opening (opening 30) in a second direction (a direction along the central axis of the opening 30/brass eyelet 32) which is different from the first direction (a direction along the outer flat surface of the front housing half 1); and an eyelet (brass eyelet 32, which reduce frictional resistance on the flexible cord 21 during its movement as disclosed in Col. 4, line 9-10) provided within the retractor housing (front housing half 1 and rear housing half 2; figure 2 clearly illustrate, no parts of the brass eyelet 32 being disposed on the exterior side of the front housing half 1 or extending beyond the outer surface of the front housing half 1, when the brass eyelet 32 is positioned within the opening 30) at a location proximate to the line opening (opening 30), such that the eyelet (brass eyelet 32) redirects the line (flexible cord 21) from the first direction (a direction along the outer flat surface of the front housing half 1) to the second direction (a direction along the central axis of the opening 30/brass eyelet 32); wherein the eyelet (brass eyelet 32) has a smooth surface (surfaces of the brass eyelet 32 that contacts the flexible cord 21) upon which the line (flexible cord 21) rides when it extends from the retractor housing (front housing half 1 and rear housing half 2) (see also Col. 2, line 33 - Col. 4, line 10). Yet, Cavanaugh does not explicitly disclose, the smooth surface of the eyelet (surfaces of the brass eyelet 32 that contacts the flexible cord 21) being configured as a funnel shaped smooth surface.
Nevertheless, Palmquist teach (Figures 1-8) a retractor system (10) comprising: a retractor housing (14) with a front surface (38 and 42), a line (20), a line retraction mechanism (16), a line opening (opening in 14 through which 156 of 142 is inserted) provided in said front surface (28 and 42), and an eyelet (142 of 18) positioned at said line opening (opening in 14 through which 156 of 142 is inserted); wherein the eyelet (142 of 18) has a funnel shaped smooth surface (148, which defines 150) upon which the line (20) rides when it extends/reattracts from the retractor housing (14) (see also Col. 3, line 21-33 and Col. 4, line 27-29).
Consequently, it would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the eyelet in Cavanaugh’s retractor system, with a funnel shaped smooth surface as suggested by Palmquist. This would be advantageous in low-friction and smooth guiding of the line though the eyelet in manner that limits the contact between the line and any sharp edges/corners, during dispensing and retraction of said line; thereby minimizing the damage to the line overtime (e.g. wear/tear or fraying), while also increasing the overall lifespan of said line.
In regards to claims 5-6 and 14-15, Cavanaugh in view of Palmquist teach all intervening claim limitations as shown above. Cavanaugh further teach (Figures 1-2), the connector (member 36) being capable of connecting/removably mounting (via the flexible cord 21) a personal article (hand-held microphone 40) to the retractor housing (front housing half 1 and rear housing half 2); wherein the connector (member 36) has a first connector part (portion of the member 36 that includes the microphone holding bracket for receiving the hand-held microphone 40) and a second connector part (portion of the member 36 that includes the cord-receiving opening for receiving the knotted end of the flexible cord 21) (see also Col. 3, line 12-54).
In regards to claim 18, Cavanaugh in view of Palmquist teach all intervening claim limitations as shown above. Cavanaugh further teach (Figures 1-2), the eyelet (brass eyelet 32) being mounted adjacent to the line opening (opening).
In regards to claim 19, Cavanaugh in view of Palmquist teach all intervening claim limitations as shown above. Palmquist further teach (Figures 1-8), the funnel shaped smooth surface (148, which defines 150) of the eyelet (142 of 18) in the retractor system (10), being funnel or hourglass shaped (as clearly illustrate in figure 5). Therefore, it would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the eyelet in Cavanaugh’s retractor system, with a funnel/hourglass shaped smooth surface as suggested by Palmquist. Such modification would be beneficial for the reason set forth above in the claim 17 rejection statements.
Claims 1, 5-8, and 14-19 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2020/0148515 A1 hereinafter referred to as “Rodriguez”) in view of Cavanaugh and Palmquist.
In regards to claim 1, Rodriguez teach (Figures 1-13) a retractor system (100) comprising: a retractor (200, 900, 902, and 1100) including a retractor housing (208 of 200, which is formed of 210 and 212) having a front surface (304 of 212); a line (1100); a line retraction mechanism (214, 220, and the spring described in paragraph 0055) provided within the retractor housing (208) for urging the retraction of the line (1100) in a first direction (a direction extending along 304) that is substantially parallel to the front surface (304); a line opening (302) provided in the front surface (304) through which the line (1100) the extends in a second direction (a direction extending along the central axis of 304) that is different from the first direction (a direction extending along 304); and an connector (900) being attached to the line (1100) (see also paragraphs 0046-0074). Yet, Rodriguez fail to disclose, the retractor system (100) including an eyelet that is disposed entirely within the retractor housing (208 of 200) at a location proximate to the line opening (302) for redirecting the line (1100) from the first direction (a direction extending along 304) to the second direction (a direction extending along the central axis of 304), or such an eyelet having a funnel shaped smooth surface for the line (110) to ride when it extends from the retractor housing (208 of 200).
On the contrary, Cavanaugh does teach (Figures 1-2) a retractor system (microphone retriever illustrated in figure 1) comprising: a retractor including a retractor housing (front housing half 1 and rear housing half 2) having a front surface (outer flat surface of the front housing half 1 that defines the opening 30 and that contacts the member 36); a line (flexible cord 21); a line retraction mechanism (reel 11 and flat spiral spring 18) provided within the retractor housing (front housing half 1 and rear housing half 2) for urging the retraction of the line (flexible cord 21) in a first direction (a direction along the outer flat surface of the front housing half 1) that is substantially parallel to the front surface (outer flat surface of the front housing half 1); a line opening (opening 30) provided in the front surface (outer flat surface of the front housing half 1), such that the line (flexible cord 21) extends through the line opening (opening 30) in a second direction (a direction along the central axis of the opening 30/brass eyelet 32) that is different from the first direction (a direction along the outer flat surface of the front housing half 1); a connector (member 36) being attached to the line (flexible cord 21); and an eyelet (brass eyelet 32, which reduce frictional resistance on the flexible cord 21 during its movement as disclosed in Col. 4, line 9-10) provided entirely within the retractor housing (front housing half 1 and rear housing half 2; figure 2 clearly illustrate, no parts of the brass eyelet 32 being disposed on the exterior side of the front housing half 1 or extending beyond the outer surface of the front housing half 1, when the brass eyelet 32 is positioned within the opening 30) at a location proximate to the line opening (opening 30), such that the eyelet (brass eyelet 32) redirects the line (flexible cord 21) from the first direction (a direction along the outer flat surface of the front housing half 1) to the second direction (a direction along the central axis of the opening 30/brass eyelet 32) when the line (flexible cord 21) passes through the eyelet (brass eyelet 32); wherein the eyelet (brass eyelet 32) provides a smooth surface (surfaces of the brass eyelet 32 that contacts the flexible cord 21) upon which the line (flexible cord 21) rides when it extends from the retractor housing (front housing half 1 and rear housing half 2) (see also Col. 2, line 33 - Col. 4, line 10). Yet, Cavanaugh also fails to reveal, the smooth surface of the eyelet (surfaces of the brass eyelet 32 that contacts the flexible cord 21) being a funnel shaped surface.
However, Palmquist teach (Figures 1-8) a retractor system (10) comprising: a retractor housing (14) with a front surface (38 and 42), a line (20), a line retraction mechanism (16), a line opening (opening in 14 through which 156 of 142 is inserted) provided in said front surface (28 and 42), and an eyelet (142 of 18) positioned at said line opening (opening in 14 through which 156 of 142 is inserted); wherein the eyelet (142 of 18) has a funnel shaped surface (148) that provides a smooth surface (150) upon which the line (20) rides when it extends/reattracts from the retractor housing (14) (see also Col. 3, line 21-33 and Col. 4, line 27-29).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Rodriguez’s retractor system, with an eyelet having a funnel shaped smooth surface, as suggested by Cavanaugh and Palmquist. Where said eyelet is positioned entirely within the retractor housing of the retractor system at a location adjacent to the line opening in the retractor housing, and it configured to redirect the line from the first direction to the second direction during its passage through the eyelet. Such a modification would facilitate the unobstructed travel of the line (i.e. with reduced frictional contact) through the line opening on the retractor housing, when it is being retracted into and/or extract from the retractor housing. Thereby, significantly minimizing the damage that many be imparted on the line overtime (e.g. wear/tear or fraying of the line due to it contacting the sharp edges/corners), while also increasing the overall lifespan of said line.
In regards to claim 17, Rodriguez teach (Figures 1-13) a retractor system (100) comprising: a retractor housing (208 of 200, which is formed of 210 and 212) having a front surface (304 of 212), and a mounting mechanism (100 and 1300) for mounting the retractor housing (208) to a user; a line (1100) which is retracted into the retractor housing (208) under a retraction force in a first direction (a direction extending along 304) which is substantially parallel to the front surface (304); and a line opening (302) provided in the front surface (304), such that the line (1100) extends through the line opening (302) in a second direction (a direction extending along the central axis of 304) which is different from the first direction (a direction extending along 304) (see also paragraphs 0046-0074). Yet, Rodriguez fail to disclose, the retractor system (100) including an eyelet that is disposed within the retractor housing (208 of 200) at a location proximate to the line opening (302) for redirecting the line (1100) from the first direction (a direction extending along 304) to the second direction (a direction extending along the central axis of 304), or such an eyelet having a funnel shaped smooth surface for the line (110) to ride when it extends from the retractor housing (208 of 200).
Whereas, Cavanaugh does teach (Figures 1-2) a retractor system (microphone retriever illustrated in figure 1) comprising: a retractor housing (front housing half 1 and rear housing half 2) having a front surface (outer flat surface of the front housing half 1 that defines the opening 30 and that contacts the member 36), and a mounting mechanism (bracket-engaging member 42) for mounting the retractor housing (front housing half 1 and rear housing half 2) to a user (bracket-engaging member 42 can be used to attach the microphone retriever to any structure that includes a complimentary microphone bracket. Examiner notes that “for mounting said retractor housing to a user” is being interpreted as an intended use limitation that describe the intended use of the mounting mechanism in the claimed retractor system); a line (flexible cord 21) that is retracted into the retractor housing (front housing half 1 and rear housing half 2) under a force (via the flat spiral spring 18) in a first direction (a direction along the outer flat surface of the front housing half 1) which is substantially parallel to the front surface (outer flat surface of the front housing half 1); a line opening (opening 30) provided in the front surface (outer flat surface of the front housing half 1), such that the line (flexible cord 21) extends through the line opening (opening 30) in a second direction (a direction along the central axis of the opening 30/brass eyelet 32) which is different from the first direction (a direction along the outer flat surface of the front housing half 1); and an eyelet (brass eyelet 32, which reduce frictional resistance on the flexible cord 21 during its movement as disclosed in Col. 4, line 9-10) provided within the retractor housing (front housing half 1 and rear housing half 2; figure 2 clearly illustrate, no parts of the brass eyelet 32 being disposed on the exterior side of the front housing half 1 or extending beyond the outer surface of the front housing half 1, when the brass eyelet 32 is positioned within the opening 30) at a location proximate to the line opening (opening 30), such that the eyelet (brass eyelet 32) redirects the line (flexible cord 21) from the first direction (a direction along the outer flat surface of the front housing half 1) to the second direction (a direction along the central axis of the opening 30/brass eyelet 32); wherein the eyelet (brass eyelet 32) has a smooth surface (surfaces of the brass eyelet 32 that contacts the flexible cord 21) upon which the line (flexible cord 21) rides when it extends from the retractor housing (front housing half 1 and rear housing half 2) (see also Col. 2, line 33 - Col. 4, line 10). Yet, Cavanaugh also fails to reveal, the smooth surface of the eyelet (surfaces of the brass eyelet 32 that contacts the flexible cord 21) being configured as a funnel shaped smooth surface.
Nevertheless, Palmquist teach (Figures 1-8) a retractor system (10) comprising: a retractor housing (14) with a front surface (38 and 42), a line (20), a line retraction mechanism (16), a line opening (opening in 14 through which 156 of 142 is inserted) provided in said front surface (28 and 42), and an eyelet (142 of 18) positioned at said line opening (opening in 14 through which 156 of 142 is inserted); wherein the eyelet (142 of 18) has a funnel shaped smooth surface (148, which defines 150) upon which the line (20) rides when it extends/reattracts from the retractor housing (14) (see also Col. 3, line 21-33 and Col. 4, line 27-29).
Consequently, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Rodriguez’s retractor system, with an eyelet having a funnel shaped smooth surface, as suggested by Cavanaugh and Palmquist. Where said eyelet is positioned within the retractor housing of the retractor system at a location adjacent to the line opening in the retractor housing, and it configured to redirect the line from the first direction to the second direction during its passage through the eyelet. Such a modification would facilitate the unobstructed travel of the line (i.e. with reduced frictional contact) through the line opening on the retractor housing, when it is being retracted into and/or extract from the retractor housing. Thereby, significantly minimizing the damage that many be imparted on the line overtime (e.g. wear/tear or fraying of the line due to it contacting the sharp edges/corners), while also increasing the overall lifespan of said line.
In regards to claims 5-8 and 14-16, Rodriguez in view of Cavanaugh and Palmquist teach all intervening claim limitations as shown above. Rodriguez further teach (Figures 1-13), the connector (900) being capable of connecting/removably mounting (via 1100) a personal article (902) to the retractor housing (208 of 200); the connector (900) including a first connector part (700) and a second connector part (800); and the first and second connector parts (700 and 800) being configured to snap together; wherein the first connector part (700) has tabs (figures 8-9 clearly illustrate, 700 including release features/protrusions that engages an annual groove feature defined within 800) that cooperate with slots (figures 8-9 clearly illustrate, 800 including an annual groove feature for engagement with the release features/protrusions provided to 700) in said second connector part (800) (see also paragraphs 0067-0072).
In regards to claims 18-19, Rodriguez in view of Cavanaugh and Palmquist teach all intervening claim limitations as shown above. Cavanaugh further teach (Figures 1-2), the eyelet (brass eyelet 32) of the retractor system (microphone retriever illustrated in figure 1) being mounted adjacent to the line opening (opening 30) in the retractor housing (front housing half 1 and rear housing half 2) of said retractor system (microphone retriever illustrated in figure 1). While Palmquist further teach (Figures 1-8), the funnel shaped smooth surface (148, which defines 150) of the eyelet (142 of 18) in the retractor system (10), being funnel or hourglass shaped (as clearly illustrate in figure 5). Hence, it would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mount the eyelet in the modified retractor system taught by Rodriguez in view of Cavanaugh and Palmquist, at a location that is adjacent to the line opening in the retractor housing (as further proposed by Cavanaugh), and provide said eyelet with a funnel/hourglass shaped smooth surface (as further proposed by Palmquist). Such a structural configuration would be beneficial for the reason set forth above in the claim 17 rejection statement.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 looks to be allowable over the prior art of record, if it is rewritten or amended to overcome the above noted objection:
In regards to claim 10, the prior art of record, either individually in combination, fails to reach or render obvious, a retractor system having the specific collective structure recited by independent claim 1. Particularly, a retractor system comprising: a retractor housing that includes a front surface, and a mounting mechanism for mounting said retractor housing to a user; a line that is retracted into the retractor housing under a retraction force in a first direction; a line opening provided in the front surface, such that the line extends through said line opening in a second direction which is different from the first direction; and an eyelet mounted to tabs within the retractor housing, such that said eyelet cooperates with the line opening to redirect said line from a first direction towards a second direction; wherein the eyelet provides a smooth surface upon which the line rides during its extraction from the retractor housing.
As explained above, Cavanaugh in view of Palmquist, or Rodriguez in view of Cavanaugh and Palmquist, can propose a retractor system comprising a retractor housing that includes a front surface, a mounting mechanism, and a line opening, a line, and an eyelet, which has substantially similar features and the arrangement described within claim 10 limitations. Nevertheless, Cavanaugh, Palmquist, and Rodriguez, all fail to suggest the eyelet of the retractor system being mounted on tabs that are provided within the retractor housing of said retractor system. Conversely, the eyelet in each said retractor system, is mounted (via form-fitting or threaded engagement) to the inlet opening in the retractor housing. Moreover, all other analogues/applicable prior art identified by the examiner, neither disclose not conceive, an eyelet of a retractor system being mounted using tabs disposed within a housing, where said retractor system has the complete remainer structural configuration recited within claim 10. Henceforth, claim 10 limitations appear to contain allowable subject mater over the cited prior art references; specially when said limitations are viewed in light of applicant’s specification.
Claims 11-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objections and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action, to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims: Clams 11-13 depends from claim 10. Thus, claims 11-13 also contain the above noted allowable subject matter in parent claim 10.
Response to Arguments
With respect to applicant's arguments in page 9 of the remarks filed on 12/29/2025, regarding the previously set forth objections to the drawings and the specification, all have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Although, some of the drawings objections have been withdrawn, as detailed above, the drawings and the specification still include informalities that were not appropriately addressed or corrected by the applicant.
With respect to applicant's arguments in page 10 of the remarks filed on 12/29/2025, regarding the previously set forth rejection for claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 12(b), all have been fully considered and are persuasive. Thus, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejections are made for claims 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as detailed above.
With respect to applicant's arguments in pages 10-13 of the remarks filed on 12/29/2025, regarding the previously set forth 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections for claims 1 and 17 (i.e. in view of Cavanaugh), all have been fully considered and are persuasive. Thus, said prior art rejections has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejections are made for claims 1 and 17 based on the combined teachings in Cavanaugh and Palmquist:
It’s the applicant’s position that neither Cavanaugh nor Cavanaugh in view of Palmquist, can suggest a retractor system comprising an eyelet having the precise structural arrangement and the features recited within claims 1 and 17. Applicant specifically states that the retractor system disclosed by Palmquist is not analogues prior art to the Cavanaugh’s retractor system, and therefore, they cannot be combined together in the manner proposed by the examiner, at least without relying on impermissible hindsight reasoning for establishing obviousness.
In response to applicant's argument that Palmquist is non-analogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention (See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). In this case, Palmquist clearly propose a retractor system that is designed to extract/react a line (as required by claims 1 and 17 limitations), and include an eyelet disposed at the inlet opening of the retractor housing for guiding said line during its extraction from/retraction into the retractor housing. Similarly, the retractor system taught by Cavanaugh is also employed to extract/react a line, and include an eyelet disposed at the inlet opening of the retractor housing for guiding said line during its extraction from/retraction into the retractor housing (as required by claims 1 and 17 limitations). Examiner further emphasize that the claim limitations does not explicitly recite what specific type of line is being employed within the claimed retractor system, or the intended implementation of the claimed retractor system. The claimed invention simply requires, a retractor housing, a line, a line opening in the retractor housing for the line to travel through, a connector, and an eyelet (that is positioned within the retractor housing and proximate to the inlet hole, such that the eyelet can redirect the line from one direction towards another different direction) with a funnel shaped smooth surface for the line to ride on as it exits/enter the retractor housing. These features and functional configuration are substantially similar to the retractor system in Cavanaugh and Palmquist. Hence, the examiner fails to understand how the disclosure of said references are not analogues to each other or to the claimed invention. In other words, comparable to the applicant’s claimed invention, both Cavanaugh and Palmquist disclose, a retractor system having an eyelet for guiding a line that is stored within a retractor housing, as said line is traveling in and out of said retractor housing. Subsequently, despite possibly having intended use that may be distinguishable from each other, inventions of both Cavanaugh and Palmquist appears to be in the field of the endeavor as the applicant’s claimed invention, and they are reasonably pertinent to solving the same problem as the applicant.
Furthermore, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper (See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971)). In addition, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art (See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)). In the present instant, providing the eyelet in Cavanaugh’s retractor system with a funnel shaped smooth surface would have been a trivial solution to one of ordinary sill in the art, that can yield certain desirable performance characteristics and/or functional improvements as noted above. in fact, as evident by the disclosure of Palmquist and also by other cited prior art references (for example, U.S. Patent 5,697,572 A, U.S. PGPUB 2012/0001008 A1, U.S. PGPUB 2019/0079257 A1, and U.S. Patent 4,565,011 A), eyelets having funnel shaped smooth surfaces are well known and routinely/widely implemented in prior line retractor systems. Resultingly, there is ample teachings in the prior art that would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the eyelet in Cavanaugh’s retractor system with a funnel shaped smooth surface. Therefore, examiner assert that Cavanaugh in view of Palmquist can propose the retractor system described within claim 1 or claim 17.
With respect to applicant's arguments in pages 10-13 of the remarks filed on 12/29/2025, regarding the previously set forth 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections for claims 1 and 17 (i.e. based on the combined teachings in Rodriguez and Cavanaugh), all have been fully considered and are persuasive. Thus, said prior art rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejections are made for claims 1 and 17 based on Rodriguez in view of Cavanaugh and Palmquist.
As explained above, Rodriguez in view of Cavanaugh and Palmquist can render obvious a retractor system having the complete structural arrangement and the operative functionality, that are described within claim 1 or claim 17.
With respect to applicant's arguments in pages 10-13 of the remarks filed on 12/29/2025, regarding the previously set forth rejections for claim 10 (i.e. under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103), in light of Cavanaugh or in light of Rodriguez and Cavanaugh, all have been fully considered and are persuasive. Thus, said prior art rejections has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 RAVEEN J DIAS whose telephone number is (571) 272-2195. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00AM - 4:30PM, Alternate Fridays.
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, VICTORIA P AUGUSTINE can be reached at (313) 446-4858. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/R.J.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654