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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hernandez, U.S. Patent 5,163,206.
Regarding Claim 1, Hernandez teaches:
a chain (14) comprised of a first end and a second end (fig. 1);
a first fastener (13) positioned at the first end; and a
second fastener (15) positioned at the second end.
Regarding Claim 4, see element 13 which is disclosed as a “spring ring”, meeting the limitation “spring loaded clip”.
Regarding Claim 5, see element 13 which is disclosed as a “spring ring” and meets the limitation “loop fastener”.
Regarding Claim 6, see element 15 which is disclosed as a “spring ring”, meeting the limitation “ring”.
Regarding Claim 7, see element 15 which is disclosed as a “spring ring” and meets the limitation “loop fastener”.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hernandez ‘206.
The prior art is silent with regard to the material used for the chain, but does disclose “a jewelry type chain”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the chain as being of metal because various precious metals are used in jewelry applications. Furthermore, material selection is generally considered obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art and applicant has not provided any unforeseen result stemming from the use of the claimed structure nor provided any specific problem solved by the claimed structure, In re Leshin.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hernandez ‘206 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dahl, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0154797.
The prior art is silent with regard to the chain comprised of rope material.
Dahl teaches a device with a chain style tether comprised of rope (see elements 3-5 and associated disclosure which repeatedly states the material as “rope”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the chain of Hernandez as being of rope material as taught by Dahl because the rope is a readily available and affordable off-the-shelf component for a tether application. Furthermore, the use of rope is considered notoriously old and known to those of ordinary skill in the art and, lastly, material selection is generally considered obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art and applicant has not provided any unforeseen result stemming from the use of the claimed structure nor provided any specific problem solved by the claimed structure, In re Leshin.
Claim(s) 8-9 and 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hernandez ‘206 as applied to claims 1 and 4-7 above, and further in view of Miller, U.S. Patent 6,418,594.
Regarding Claim 8, all aspects of the claim are taught by Hernandez ‘206 in the rejection of
Claim 1 above, but for the cover.
Miller teaches a tether device comprising a cover (16) which serves as a handle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Hernandez with a cover as taught by Miller because the cover/handle would reduce the likelihood of pinching when grasped by a user.
Regarding Claim 9, The prior arts are silent with regard to the material used for the chain, but
does disclose “a jewelry type chain”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the chain as being of metal because various precious metals are used in jewelry applications and material selection is generally considered obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art and applicant has not provided any unforeseen result stemming from the use of the claimed structure nor provided any specific problem solved by the claimed structure, In re Leshin.
Regarding Claims 11-14, see rejections of Claims 4-7 in light of the rejection of Claim 8 above.
Regarding Claim 15, this claim does not appear to disclose any limitations beyond those set forth in Claim 8 and are therefore considered obvious over the prior art as set forth in the rejection of Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 16, in the instant combination, Miller teaches the cover being plastic (see Col 6, Lns 10-15).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hernandez-Miller as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Dahl ‘797.
Hernandez-Miller is silent with regard to the chain comprised of rope material.
Dahl teaches a device with a chain style tether comprised of rope (see elements 3-5 and associated disclosure which repeatedly states the material as “rope”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the chain of Hernandez as being of rope material as taught by Dahl because the rope is a readily available and affordable off-the-shelf component for a tether application. Furthermore, the use of rope is considered notoriously old and known to those of ordinary skill in the art and, lastly, material selection is generally considered obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art and applicant has not provided any unforeseen result stemming from the use of the claimed structure nor provided any specific problem solved by the claimed structure, In re Leshin.
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hernandez-Miller as applied to Claims 8-9 and 11-16 above, and further in view of Harrison, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0346824.
The prior arts are silent with regard to a cushion application and with regard to the particular detailed steps of the method.
Harrison clearly teaches the use of a tether in a cushion retention application (see fig. 5, elements 34, 15, 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the Hernandez-Miller combination in a cushion application as taught by Harrison because that would reduce the likelihood of losing the cushion device in certain applications, such as maritime. Examiner notes that the above method step limitations are considered obvious over the prior art in view of rejections of the structural limitations previously set forth. Although the prior art does not explicitly set forth the method steps as claimed when the method steps essentially set forth the provision and use of an apparatus, as intended by its structure, then such method steps are considered obvious when the structure of the apparatus has been demonstrated as obvious or anticipated by the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5218. The examiner can normally be reached IFP, Typically M-Th, 8:00-6:00, regular Fr availability.
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.J.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677