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 07/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the argument made against the second handle; 210 of Church, the fabric of the hand strap forms a loop of leash to grip, the language of the current leash strap does not distinguish the prior art from the claimed invention. The specific distinction between Church and the instant claim is the wrapping portion which has been taught by the Sy reference below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 & 6-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein, a length of the rod is adjustable based on a size of an animal on the leash” which is not supported by the originally filed disclosure. Claims 6-18 fail to remedy such deficiency.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 & 6-18 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
The term “adjustable” in claim 1 is used by the claim to mean “replaceable,” while the accepted meaning is “adjusting a length of a single component.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Claims 6-18 fail to remedy such deficiency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 6-8, & 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Church, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0133592 A1 in view of Sylvanowicz, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0092101 A1; herein Sy.
Re claim 1, as best understood, Church discloses a leash (abstract and fig. 10) comprising:
a rigid portion (214; the rigid rod, fig. 8-9) having a rod surrounded by a fabric (para 46, the rigid rod is surrounded by the flexible sleeve which may be formed from a plurality of fabrics), the rigid portion extending from a distal end (206; the distal end, fig. 8) of the leash toward a proximal end (fig. 10, the rigid portion extends from a distal end adjacent the dog and a proximal end [204, fig. 8] adjacent the handle);
a clip (212; the attachment portion, fig. 8) at the distal end of the leash (fig. 8 & 10, the leash clip member is disposed adjacent the dog at the distal end);
a flexible portion at the proximal end of the leash connected to the rigid portion (fig. 7-10 and para 46, the wrist strap and hand covering strip, formed of nylon or another flexible woven material listed);
a first handle (208; the wrist strap, fig. 8-10) at the proximal end of the flexible portion of the leash (fig. 8-10 and para 46, where the wrist strap located proximal a human), formed by a first loop of mesh material (again see fig. 8-10 and para 46);
wherein, the rigid portion is formed by the leash defining a central opening (216; the opening, fig. 9) operable to receive a rod (fig. 9 and para 47, the rigid rod is removably received within the opening) at a proximal end of the rigid portion (fig. 8-10, the end of the rigid rod proximate the human);
wherein, the rod is removable from a pocket or holder (202; the elongated flexible sleeve, fig. 8-10) formed by the leash (fig. 9 and para 46-47, the opening and the closing elements of the sleeve are connected to the rigid rod forming the animal leash), at a proximal end of the rigid portion (fig. 9, the end of the rod proximate the handle);
wherein, a length of the rod is replaceable (para 47 & 49-50, the rod may be inserted and removed from the sleeve as the user sees fit);
a second handle (210; the hand covering strip, fig. 8-10) at the proximal end of the rigid portion (fig. 8-10), formed by a second loop of leash material (again see fig. 7-10 and para 46);
wherein, the second handle allows the animal on the leash to be both pulled and pushed (para 49, based on the three-dimensional control);
the second handle, the distal end of the flexible portion, and the proximal end of the rigid portion, are held in place by fabric and stitching (para 46, the sleeve is stitched and the fabric handle is attached thereto).
The examiner has recognized the following claimed aspect as recitations of an intended use: the rod being replaceable based on a size of an animal on the leash. The examiner upholds that in an apparatus claim the manner in which the device is intended to be employed does not differentiate a claim from the prior art. See MPEP 2114 II.
Church fails to disclose the second handle, the distal end of the flexible portion, and the proximal end of the rigid portion, are held in place by a wrap. However, Sy discloses a wrap portion (60; the cover, fig. 1) for joining portions of a leash together (para 11, the heat shrink wrap holds the clamps and leash in place).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose the second handle, the distal end of the flexible portion, and the proximal end of the rigid portion, are held in place by a wrap however, Sy discloses such a technique. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of the wrapping portions as taught by Sy to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by supporting the weaker points of the leash. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Re claim 6, the combination of Church and Sy discloses the invention of claim 1, the combination discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the rod is formed of an ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize an ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene for the rigid rod, UHMW PE has a significantly higher wear and abrasion resistance when compared to PVC and is known to be effective for its extreme durability, since it has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 7, the combination of Church and Sy discloses the invention of claim 1, Church further discloses the rigid portion is between 15-40 inches in length (para 15, the length of the rigid rob being between 20 and 40 inches).
Re claim 8, the combination of Church and Sy discloses the invention of claim 1, the combination discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the flexible portion is between 10-30 inches in length. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the flexible portion be a similar length to the rigid rod [between 20 & 30 inches], since it has been held that such a modification would only involve a mere change in size which is generally recognized as an obvious modification. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.
Re claim 10, the combination of Church and Sy discloses the invention of claim 1, Church further discloses a collar connected to the leash by the clip (fig. 10 and para 46, the attachment portion is coupled to the collar of an animal.
Re claim 11, the combination of Church and Sy discloses the invention of claim 1, Church further discloses wherein the rigid portion is sized to be longer than a distance from a neck to a hind quarters or tail of a dog (fig. 10, the rigid section is sized sufficiently to create space between the user and animal).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Church in view of Sy as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rasmussen, U.S. Patent No. 5,813,368 A, herein Ras.
Re claim 9, the combination of Church and Sy discloses the invention of claim 1, the combination fails to disclose explicitly wherein the rigid portion is longer than the flexible portion. However, Ras discloses wherein the rigid portion (20; the sliding locking tube, fig. 1) is longer than the flexible portion (48; the woven nylon strap, fig. 1).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose explicitly wherein the rigid portion is longer than the flexible portion however, Ras discloses such a rigid tube. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of the slide locking tube taught by Ras to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by allowing the rigid portion to extend in a quick fashion beyond the sleeve if necessary to protect the user. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Claims 12-14 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Church in view of Sy as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sheldon et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0135431 A1, herein Sheldon.
Re claim 12, the combination of Church and Sy discloses the invention of claim 1, the combination fails to disclose a vibrator operable to cause a controlled vibration to the clip. However, Sheldon discloses a leash system (para 132, the leash is engaged with the clip attachment) further comprising a vibrator (897; the vibration motors) operable to cause a controlled vibration to the clip (para 62, the vibration motor being within the clip attachment).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose a vibrator operable to cause a controlled vibration to the clip however, Sheldon discloses a vibrator operable to cause a controlled vibration to a clip attachment. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art elements of the vibration motor taught by Sheldon to the clip of the prior art to yield the predictable result of a stimulus to communicate with the animal (Sheldon, para 94, the vibration motor vibrates to gain the animal’s attention). See MPEP 2143 I (A) & (G).
Re claim 13, the combination of Church, Sy, and Sheldon discloses the invention of claim 12, the combination further discloses wherein the vibrator is positioned at the distal end of the leash (Church, fig. 8, the clip thus the vibrator are positioned at the distal end).
Re claim 14, the combination of Church, Sy, and Sheldon discloses the invention of claim 12, the combination discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the rigid portion is formed of the rod and the vibrator connected together. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the rod be seated and integral within the clip, such that the vibrator is integrated into the leash system so the animal does not consume any electrical components, as it has been held that forming an article in one piece which has formerly been formed in two/three pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 V. B.
Re claim 18, the modification of Church, Sy, and Sheldon discloses the invention of claim 14, the modification further discloses wherein the elongate rod is directly connected to or integrally formed with the vibrator (See id.).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Church in view of Sy and Sheldon as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Beck, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0235040 A1.
Claim 15, the combination of Church, Sy, and Sheldon discloses the invention of claim 12, Sheldon further discloses a controller (para 30, the user interface on the device comprising an actuator for the vibration motor).
The combination of Church, Sy, and Sheldon fails to disclose a controller positioned on the handle. However, Beck discloses a controller positioned on the handle (fig. 13 and para 45 & 67, the power switch for the vibration is on the handle).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose a controller positioned on the handle however, Beck discloses a trigger/controller on a leash handle for a vibration assembly. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of the trigger for the vibration mechanism being located within the handle taught by Beck to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by allowing the trigger mechanism to be actuated by a user (fig. 13 and para 45-47, the switch is accessible on the handle body for actuation). See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
The examiner additionally notes, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the controller housed within the handle to protect it from the animal being handled, as it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI. C.
Re claim 16, the combination of Church, Sy, Sheldon, and Beck or the combination of discloses the invention of claim 15, Sheldon further discloses a wire extending between a motor of the vibrator to the controller (fig. 8 and para 62-63, the vibration motor and processors [which function as controllers, see para 63] are connected via wired connections within the clip attachment), the motor being programmed for a plurality of operational modes and controlled by the controller (para 42 & 63, measured environmental information being used to activate or adjust the settings of the vibration motor).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Church in view of Sy and Sheldon as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Mainini et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0156277 A1, herein Main.
Re claim 17, the combination of Church, Sy, and Sheldon discloses the invention of claim 12, Sheldon further discloses wherein the vibrator comprises a battery (821b; the battery of the clip, fig. 8) and a motor (para 62, the vibration motor being within the clip attachment).
The combination of Church and Sheldon or the combination of Church, Byrne, and Sheldon fail to disclose the vibrator comprising a rotating weight. However, Main discloses a vibrator (22; the vibrator, fig. 5) comprising a rotating weight (30; the eccentric mass, fig. 5 and para 24-25).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose the vibrator comprising a rotating weight however, Main discloses a vibrator that functions with a rotating mass. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of the eccentric mass in communication with the motor taught by Main to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by causing stimulus to communicate with the animal (Main, para 6, studies show animals respond to vibration). See MPEP 2143 I. (C) & (G).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE P MACCRATE whose telephone number is (571)272-5215. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 9am-5pm EST.
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, Joshua J Michener can be reached on 571-272-1467. 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.
/NICOLE PAIGE MACCRATE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642