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 § 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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura, US 2011/0241360 A1, in view of Shinoda, US 2022/0307294 A1.
Claim 1: Kitamura discloses a pull-release tether for disengaging an actuator (Fig. 1), the pull- release tether comprising:
a tether (7) having a first end (end portion at shaft engagement portion 71) and a second end (end portion at handle portion 72), wherein the second end is configured to couple with the actuator ([0047]; Fig. 2);
a fastener assembly (722) coupled to the first end (Fig. 5) and configured to couple to an opening (851) formed at operator interface (Fig. 11);
a pull handle (72) coupled to the fastener assembly (Fig. 5); and
a retention feature (724) extending downwardly from the pull handle (Fig. 11 depicts the retention feature extends in a direction downward from the pull ring) and projecting outwardly as the retention feature extends downwardly from the pull handle (Fig. 11 depicts the retention feature projects outward from the fastener assembly as it extends downward).
Kitamura discloses a pull handle coupled to the fastener assembly, but is silent to a pull ring. Shinoda teaches a pull-release tether comprising a pull ring (32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the handle disclosed by Kitamura to be shaped as a pull ring, as taught by Shinoda, to improve the ease of being grabbed and pulled with a user’s finger (Shinoda [0038]). One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 2: Kitamura, in view of Shinoda, teaches the pull-release tether of claim 1, wherein the tether, the fastener assembly, and the pull ring are a unitary structure (Kitamura [0042]).
Claim 3: Kitamura, in view of Shinoda, teaches the pull-release tether of claim 1, wherein the fastener assembly comprises a base below the retention feature (Kitamura Fig. 11 depicts the attachment portion 722 includes a base that extends below the retention feature 724).
Kitamura, in view of Shinoda, teaches the retention feature comprises a clip (Fig. 11 depicts the retention feature 724 structured as a clip). However, Kitamura, in view of Shinoda, is silent to the retention feature comprising a plurality of clips. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the retention feature taught by Kitamura, in view of Shinoda, to comprise another clip to improve engagement stability of the retention feature. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide a plurality of clips and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results are predictable. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Claim 4: Kitamura, in view of Shinoda, teaches the pull-release tether of claim 3, wherein the plurality of clips includes a first clip and a second clip (as modified in claim 3, a plurality of clips includes at least a first clip and a second clip), each of the first clip and the second clip being outwardly biased (Kitamura [0044], [0049-50]: the first and second clips, as modified, are outwardly biased by the deformable portion 722) and resiliently connected to the fastener assembly (one skilled in the art would recognize the first and second clips are formed as a unit with the fastener assembly made of a resilient material (Kitamura [0042], [0044] (“deformable” and “snap-fit fastener” corresponds to a deformable, resilient material)), the connection between the first and second clips and the fastener assembly would comprise the same material so the connection would meet the Merriam-Webster definition of resilient and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term).
Claim 7: Kitamura, in view of Shinoda, teaches the pull-release tether of claim 1, wherein the second end is configured to couple with a release mechanism of the actuator (Kitamura 6; Kitamura [0047]).
Claim 8: Kitamura, in view of Shinoda, teaches the pull-release tether of claim 1, wherein the second end is configured to couple with a release mechanism of the actuator (Kitamura 6; Kitamura [0047]) via a coupling feature (Kitamura 71).
Claim 10: Kitamura, in view of Shinoda, teaches the pull-release tether of claim 1, wherein the tether, the fastener assembly, and the pull ring are a unitary structure formed of a synthetic polymer (Kitamura [0042] “integrally formed by the synthetic resin material as a unit” corresponds to a unitary structure formed of a synthetic polymer).
Claim 11: Kitamura, in view of Shinoda, teaches the pull-release tether of claim 1, wherein the fastener assembly comprises a base (Kitamura 722) and wherein the retention feature comprises a cap-shaped retention feature (Kitamura Fig. 5 depicts the retention feature having a shape similar to a mushroom cap (described in Spec. [0045] of present application)).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura and Shinoda as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Huang et al., CN 106285243 A.
Claim 9: Kitamura, in view of Shinoda, teaches the pull-release tether of claim 8, wherein the coupling feature is integrated with the tether (Kitamura [0042]).
The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Court, quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that “‘rejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
See MPEP § 2143 for a discussion of the rationales listed above along with examples illustrating how the cited rationales may be used to support a finding of obviousness. See also MPEP § 2144 - § 2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations.
However, Kitamura, in view of Shinoda, are silent to the coupling feature being spherical. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale A, to modify the coupling feature taught by Kitamura, in view of Shinoda, to be spherical, as taught by Huang. Huang teaches a coupling feature that is spherical (46, Fig. 1). The prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and, that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and further recognized the results of the combination were predictable, namely a connection feature that is spherical and integrated with the tether.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 12 and 14-20 allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Although the references of record show some features similar to those of Applicant’s device, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious the invention of claims 5-6, 12, and 14-20.
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 18, Kitamura discloses a pull-release tether for disengaging an actuator comprising a tether, a fastener assembly comprising a retention feature and a base, and a pull handle, wherein the tether the fastener assembly, and the pull handle are a unitary structure. However, Kitamura discloses the base with a sidewall having an outer diameter smaller than an opening formed at an operator interface and does not explicitly teach the base defines a sidewall configured to form an interference fit with the opening. The examiner can find no motivation to modify the fastener assembly disclosed by Kitamura to have a base that defines a sidewall configured to form an interference fit with the opening without use of impermissible hindsight and/or destroying the intended structure of the assembly.
In regards to claim 6, the prior art fails to disclose each and every limitation of claim 5 from which the claim depends.
In regards to claims 14-17, the prior art fails to disclose each and every limitation of claim 12 from which the claims depend.
In regards to claims 19-20, the prior art fails to disclose each and every limitation of claim 18 from which the claims depend.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11 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.
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 Emily Gail Brown whose telephone number is (571)272-5463. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm 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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at (571) 272-7376. 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.
/EGB/Examiner, Art Unit 3675 /KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675