Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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)(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.
Claims 15-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication #2011/0008093 to Treacy (Treacy). Treacy discloses:
With Respect to Claim 15
A no-drop bracelet assembly comprising: a) a bracelet adapted to be worn by a user, comprising a housing structure (20) and at least one arm (22) extending arcuately from one end of the housing structure to another end of the housing structure and around a central axis of the bracelet (see, e.g. FIG. 2); b) a retractable tether (16/18) housed in the housing structure; and c) a coupler (14) coupled to the retractable tether and adapted to be removably engaged to an object (capable of this use which is also the intended use, noting 12).
With Respect to Claim 16
The no-drop bracelet assembly of claim 15, wherein the at least one arm comprises two arms (noting one arm is the strap loop attached to buckle 26, and the other arm is 22) extending from opposite ends of the housing structure in an arcuate manner around the central axis of the bracelet (see, e.g. FIG. 2).
With Respect to Claim 19
The no-drop bracelet assembly of claim 15, wherein the object comprises a toy (it is Examiner’s position that any writing implement is a toy at least inasmuch as it is capable of use as a toy).
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 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication #2011/0008093 to Treacy (Treacy) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of #11,723,448 to Gaytan (Gaytan) and/or U.S. Patent #9,010,592 to Toon (Toon).
With Respect to Claim 17
The no-drop bracelet assembly of claim 16, but does not disclose materials for the housing or arm and so does not disclose wherein the housing structure and the arm are made of silicone, rubber, plastic, or metal.
However, Gaytan discloses forming a similar bracelet out of rubber, plastic, or metal, and a housing integral with a similar bracelet (noting FIG. 8) and the housing having an interior containment area for holding a similar extension mechanism (FIG. 8); Toon discloses a similar housing and bracelet structure wherein the bracelet arms and housing are formed from plastic (noting disclosure that 70 is plastic and that 70 also forms the bottom of the housing) and the housing contains a similar reel structure (FIG. 3 and description).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Gaytan and/or Toon, to form the housing structure and arm out of plastic, for the art known benefits of a given plastic or plastics in general, as a mere selection of an art appropriate material to use, and/or as it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication #2011/0008093 to Treacy (Treacy), either alone or further in view of #1,134,691 to Martin (Martin).
With Respect to Claim 18
The no-drop bracelet assembly of claim 17, wherein the coupler is a keyring, a clasp, or a flexible strap having buttons at both ends (14 is a clasp to the extent claimed).
Alternately, Martin discloses a similar pencil/writing instrument attachment structure at the end of a tether that is a clasp (15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Martin, to use a clasp as taught by Martin to attach the pencil/writing instrument of Treacy, as a mere selection of an art appropriate attachment structure to use or at most a mere substitution of one art known attachment structure for another.
Claims 1 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #11,154,129 to Harlee (Harlee) in view of U.S. Patent #4,779,778 to Nixon (Nixon) and U.S. Patent #8,935,940 to Lough (Lough).
With Respect to Claim 1
Harlee discloses a no-drop bracelet assembly comprising: a) a bracelet (110) adapted to be worn by a user (Col. 2 lines 19-25 indicate a wrist attached loop/lanyard which is a bracelet), comprising a housing structure and at least one arm (150 Is a housing to the extent claimed) extending arcuately from one end of the housing structure around a central axis of the bracelet (see, e.g. FIG. 1A); b) a retractable tether (retractable element 120) engaged to the bracelet (via 112 and 122), wherein the bracelet is coupled to the retractable tether via a hook (122), wherein the hook is engaged to a casing of the retractable tether and is removably coupled to the bracelet (see, e.g. FIG. 1A and description); and c) a coupler (130) coupled to the retractable tether and adapted to be removably engaged to an object (capable of this use which is also the intended use); but does not disclose that the bracelet comprises a flexible chainring; but does not disclose the bracelet’s at least one arm extending from one end of the housing structure to another end of the housing structure and.
However, Nixon discloses a similar user worn object holder that can attach to a lanyard/loop attachable to a wrist, and that the loop can be made of a chain.
Lough discloses forming a bracelet/wrist lanyard for attaching objects to a user with a connector/housing (112) to which the objects attach via keychain/split ring/key rings similar to those shown in Harlee, wherein the wrist lanyard/bracelet includes a housing (112) and at least one arm (flexible member 101) extending from one end of the housing structure to another end of the housing structure (see, e.g. FIGS. 1-3 and description), in order to attach a variety of items (e.g. keys, self defense spray) to a user’s wrist.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Nixon, to form the wrist loop/lanyard/bracelet of Harlee as a chainring, for the art known benefits of this constructure (e.g. strength, aesthetic appeal), and/or as a mere selection of an art appropriate type of bracelet material or at most a mere substitution of one art known bracelet material for another.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Lough, to form the connector and wrist lanyard/bracelet as a housing (112) and the chain formed as an arm extending from one side of the housing to another (noting that Nixon discloses a chain as a substitute for beads as taught by Lough), in order to have the chain more closely secure about the user (i.e. extending from the sides of the housing will result in a more circular shape than both ends extending from one side) and/or as a mere substitution of one art known wrist lanyard/bracelet structure for another.
Alternately, although Examiner maintains the position that the permanently attached band of Lough is at least one arm to the extent claimed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to make one or both ends of the band (110) removable from the housing or separable from each other, in order to allow for easier attachment or removal of the band, and/or as doing so constitutes at most merely making separable which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04). With this modification, the band or pair of attached bands are more clearly “arms”.
With Respect to Claim 8
The no-drop bracelet assembly of claim 1, wherein the hook comprises a ring shape (122 as shown is a ring to the extent claimed; alternately, making it more circular and ring-like would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application as a mere change in shape which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04)).
With Respect to Claim 9
The no-drop bracelet assembly of claim 1, wherein the object comprises a toy (capable of this use; it is noted alternately that although the toy is only functionally recited, the reach extender is a toy to the extent broadly claimed inasmuch as it is capable of use as a toy).
Claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #11,154,129 to Harlee (Harlee) in view of U.S. Patent #4,779,778 to Nixon (Nixon) and U.S. Patent #8,935,940 to Lough (Lough) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent #1,567,783 to Best (Best).
With Respect to Claim 2
The no-drop bracelet assembly of claim 1, but does not disclose details of the retraction mechanism and so does not disclose wherein the casing comprises: i) a front cover and a rear cover; ii) a winch drum arranged inside the casing and rotatably coupled to a pin that extends from the rear cover; and iii) a cord comprising a portion of the cord wound around the winch drum and a remaining portion of the cord hanging outwardly from the casing.
However, Best discloses a similar reel for securing an item to a user comprising i) a front cover (14) and a rear cover (1); ii) a winch drum (8) arranged inside the casing and rotatably coupled to a pin (12) that extends from the rear cover (see, e.g. FIG. 2); and iii) a cord (16) comprising a portion of the cord wound around the winch drum and a remaining portion of the cord hanging outwardly from the casing (FIGS. 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Best, to form the retraction mechanism of Harlee as taught by Best, for the benefits disclosed by Best for its structure, the obvious benefits of this structure, and/or as a mere selection of an art appropriate retraction mechanism to use or at most a mere substitution of one art known retraction mechanism for another.
With Respect to Claim 3
The no-drop bracelet assembly of claim 2, wherein the retractable tether comprises a biasing mechanism (4 per Best) configured to allow unwinding of the cord from the winch drum.
With Respect to Claim 4
The no-drop bracelet assembly of claim 3, wherein the retractable tether comprises a biasing mechanism (4 per Best) configured to retract and reel the cord back around the winch drum when a pulling force is removed and the cord is released.
With Respect to Claim 5
The no-drop bracelet assembly of claim 4, wherein the coupler is attached to a free end of the cord and is disposed outside the casing (see e.g. Harlee FIG. 2B, and Best which also has this structure).
With Respect to Claim 6
The no-drop bracelet assembly of claim 5, wherein the coupler is configured to facilitate removable coupling of the bracelet with the object.
With Respect to Claim 7
The no-drop bracelet assembly of claim 6, wherein the coupler is a keyring, a clasp, or a flexible strap having buttons at both ends (a keyring such as a split ring is disclosed, as is a clasp such as the swivel hook/clasp shown in FIG. 2B).
Claims 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #11,154,129 to Harlee (Harlee) in view of U.S. Patent #8,935,940 to Lough (Lough) and U.S. Patent #1,567,783 to Best (Best).
With Respect to Claim 10
A no-drop bracelet assembly comprising: a) a bracelet arranged in a circular ring type configuration (to the extent claimed and/or obvious as it will take on such a shape when worn, (Col. 2 lines 19-25 indicate a wrist attached loop/lanyard which is a bracelet or to the degree that there might be some type of such which exists and is not a bracelet, clearly renders a bracelet obvious as a mere selection of an art known type of wrist worn loop/lanyard); b) a retractable tether (retractable element 120) engaged to the bracelet (via 112 and 122), wherein the bracelet is coupled to the retractable tether via a hook (122), and c) a coupler (130) coupled to the free end of the cord and adapted to be removably engaged to an object (capable of this use which is also the intended use); but does not disclose that the bracelet comprises a plurality of beads and an elastic string extending through the plurality of beads and arranged in a circular ring type configuration, and does not disclose details of the retraction mechanism and so does not disclose wherein the retractable tether comprises a winch drum and a cord comprising a free end of the cord and a portion of the cord wound around the winch drum;.
However, Lough discloses forming a wrist attached loop/lanyard used to hold various items out of a plurality of beads and an elastic string extending through the plurality of beads and arranged in a circular ring type configuration (see, e.g. FIG. 1 and description), and further comprising a housing structure (112) and at least one arm (110) extending arcuately from one end of the housing structure to another end of the housing structure and around a central axis of the bracelet (FIGS. 1-3 and description).
Best discloses a similar reel for securing an item to a user comprising a winch drum (8) and a cord (16) comprising a free end of the cord and a portion of the cord wound around the winch drum (see, e.g. FIGS. 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Lough, to form the wrist loop/lanyard/bracelet of Harlee out of a plurality of beads and an elastic string extending through the plurality of beads and arranged in a circular ring type configuration and further comprising a housing structure and at least one arm extending arcuately from one end of the housing structure to another end of the housing structure and around a central axis of the bracelet, for the art known benefits of this constructure (e.g. aesthetic appeal, ease of putting on and removal, adaptability to different wrist sizes), and/or as a mere selection of an art appropriate type of bracelet material or at most a mere substitution of one art known bracelet material for another.
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Best, to form the retraction mechanism of Harlee as taught by Best, for the benefits disclosed by Best for its structure, the obvious benefits of this structure, and/or as a mere selection of an art appropriate retraction mechanism to use or at most a mere substitution of one art known retraction mechanism for another.
Alternately, although Examiner maintains the position that the permanently attached band of Lough is at least one arm to the extent claimed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to make one or both ends of the band (110) removable from the housing or separable from each other, in order to allow for easier attachment or removal of the band, and/or as doing so constitutes at most merely making separable which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04). With this modification, the band or pair of attached bands are more clearly “arms”.
With Respect to Claim 11
The no-drop bracelet assembly of claim 10, wherein the retractable tether comprises a biasing mechanism (4 per Best) configured to allow unwinding of the cord from the winch drum.
With Respect to Claim 12
The no-drop bracelet assembly of claim 11, wherein the retractable tether comprises a biasing mechanism (4 per Best) configured to retract and reel the cord back around the winch drum when a pulling force is removed and the cord is released.
With Respect to Claim 13
The no-drop bracelet assembly of claim 12, wherein the coupler is a keyring, a clasp, or a flexible strap having buttons at both ends (a keyring such as a split ring is disclosed, as is a clasp such as the swivel hook/clasp shown in FIG. 2B).
With Respect to Claim 14
The no-drop bracelet assembly of claim 10, wherein the object comprises a toy (capable of this use; it is noted alternately that although the toy is only functionally recited, the reach extender is a toy to the extent broadly claimed inasmuch as it is capable of use as a toy and/or that it would be obvious in view of the disclosure of Best to attach various items to the bracelet to use the tether to attach other items or add a second tether to hold other items as a mere duplication of parts which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/22/25 have been fully considered but they are either not persuasive or are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
In response to Applicant’s unsupported statements/arguments
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. For clarity, Applicant generally states that Treacy does not disclose a housing and at least one arm as claimed, but does not provide any support for this assertion. Examiner maintains the position that the flexible straps of Treacy constitute at least one arm as claimed.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. For clarity, Applicant generally states that Treacy does not disclose a housing and at least one arm as claimed, but does not provide any support for this assertion. Examiner maintains the position that the flexible straps of Treacy constitute at least one arm as claimed.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that Harlee (and other references) does not disclose a housing and at least one arm as claimed, see the new rejection above using Lough’s teaching of a wrist worn bracelet having a housing and at least one arm extending from each side of the housing as recited in the claims.
Examiner maintains that the subject matter of the amended claims is taught by or obvious over the cited references, see the rejection of the claims above for details.
Conclusion
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 ADAM J WAGGENSPACK whose telephone number is (571)270-7418. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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.
/ADAM J WAGGENSPACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734