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 § 102/103
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) 2-6, 9-20 and 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Soderberg et al. (US 2010/0139057).
Regarding claim 2, Soderberg et al. discloses an apparatus comprising:
a housing (512) having an interior region (528);
a spool (514) positioned within the interior region of the housing, the spool being rotatable in a first direction (clockwise as shown in Fig. 37) within the housing to wind a tension member (520) about the spool and thereby tighten the article;
a knob (516) rotatable coupled with the housing and operably coupled with the spool to cause the spool to rotate within the housing in the first direction (Fig. 37 as shown);
a pawl (562) that includes at least one pawl tooth and that is configured to prevent rotation of the spool in a second direction that is opposite of the first direction (Fig. 37 as shown); and
a rotation restraint (531) that is operably couplable with the spool to prevent rotation of the spool in the second direction when a tension of the tension member is at or below a minimal tension threshold (Paragraph 155, last 9 lines, describe wherein the length of 531 can be selected to prevent further loosening of the tension member).
Regarding claims 3, 11 and 17, Soderberg et al. further discloses wherein the rotation restraint engages a bottom portion of the spool to prevent the spool from rotating in the second direction (Fig. 38 shows the restraint wrapped around the bottom of the spool).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Soderberg et al. further discloses wherein the spool is axially moveable within the interior region of the housing, and wherein axial movement of the spool within the interior region effects engagement and disengagement of the spool with the rotation restraint (Paragraph 175, lines 16-17 describe wherein the knob can be lifted. The location of the secured ends of the rotation restraint would allow for tension to be applied and released from the rotation restraint member effectuating engagement and disengagement respectively).
Regarding claims 5, 13 and 19, Soderberg et al. further discloses wherein the rotation restraint is disengagable from the spool to allow the spool to rotate in the second direction (knot at 531b can be untied to release the restraint from the spool).
Regarding claims 6, 14 and 20, Soderberg et al. further discloses wherein the rotation restraint is configured to engage the spool only when the tension of the tension member is at or below the minimal tension threshold (the device as shown is capable of operating in the claimed manner wherein the tension member length is sufficiently short that the restraint does not reach its limit while rotating in the first direction and yet still reaches its limit at or below the minimal tension threshold when the knob is rotated in the second direction).
Regarding claims 9 and 15, Soderberg et al. further discloses wherein the rotation restraint is disengaged from the spool until the tension of the tension member is at or below the minimal tension threshold, and wherein disengagement of the rotation restraint and spool allows the spool to rotate in the first direction and second direction (the restraint as shown is engaged when the slack is taken up and tension is applied to the rotation restraint; the restraint is considered disengaged while it no tension is applied to the rotation restraint from the spool).
Regarding claim 10, Soderberg et al. discloses an apparatus comprising:
a housing (512);
a spool (514) positioned within the housing, the spool being rotatable in a first direction (clockwise as shown in Fig. 37) to wind a tension member (520) about the spool;
a tensioner (516) that is operably coupled with the spool, the tensioner being configured to cause the spool to rotate in the first direction (Fig. 37 as shown);
a pawl (562) that includes at least one pawl tooth and that is configured to prevent rotation of the spool in a second direction (Fig. 37 as shown); and
a rotation restraint (531) that is operable with the spool when a tension of the tension member is at or below a minimal tension threshold to prevent rotation of the spool in the second direction (Paragraph 155, last 9 lines, describe wherein the length of 531 can be selected to prevent further loosening of the tension member).
Regarding claim 16, Soderberg et al. discloses an apparatus comprising:
a housing (512);
a spool (514) positioned within the housing, the spool being rotatable in a first direction (clockwise as shown in Fig. 37) to wind a tension member (520) about the spool;
a tensioner (516) that is operably coupled with the spool, the tensioner being configured to cause the spool to rotate in the first direction (Fig. 37 as shown);
a pawl component (562) that includes at least one pawl that is configured to prevent rotation of the spool in a second direction that is opposite the first direction (Fig. 37 as shown); and
a rotation restraint (531) that is operable with the spool to prevent rotation of the spool in the second direction when a tension of the tension member is at or below a minimal tension threshold (Paragraph 155, last 9 lines, describe wherein the length of 531 can be selected to prevent further loosening of the tension member).
Regarding claim 18, Soderberg et al. further discloses wherein the spool is axially moveable within the housing, and wherein axial movement of the spool within the housing effects engagement and disengagement of the spool with the rotation restraint (Paragraph 175, lines 16-17 describe wherein the knob can be lifted. The location of the secured ends of the rotation restraint would allow for tension to be applied and released from the rotation restraint member effectuating engagement and disengagement respectively).
Regarding claims 22-24, Soderberg et al. further discloses wherein the rotation restraint is separated from the spool by a gap when the rotation restraint and spool are disengaged (Lifting the knob in the apparatus in Fig. 37 would cause an increased separation between the restraint and spool).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 7, 8 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Soderberg et al. in view of Martinez (US 3,743,280).
Regarding claims 7 and 21, Soderberg et al. further discloses wherein the rotation restraint comprises one or more of the following: teeth; a rubber gasket; an abrasive material; or a tacky material (Soderberg et al. describes wherein the material can be nylon).
Nylon is an inherently abrasive material as demonstrated by Martinez (Column 4, lines 54-57).
From this teaching of Martinez, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to recognize that the nylon material used by Soderberg is abrasive as required by the claim.
Regarding claim 8, Soderberg et al. further discloses wherein the rotation restraint is arranged within the reel based closure device to engage a bottom surface of the spool (Fig. 38 as shown).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The claims now including language from objected claims have been reconsidered in light of the newly applied references above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5735. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
/M.S.L/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/ SPE, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights