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 .
This is a final Office action responsive to the reply filed on 05/20/2026.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 9 have been amended.
Claim 10 has been canceled.
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 4 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 3 “the relaxed configuration” should be - - the retracted configuration - - or - - a relaxed configuration - -.
Claim 4, line 1 “the taut size” should be - - a taut size - -.
Claim 9, line 20 “the relaxed configuration” should be - - the retracted configuration - - or - - a relaxed configuration - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2 and 9 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.
"The amended claim filed on 05/20/2026 introduces new matter that is not supported in the originally filed disclosure. The claimed subject matter pertaining to “a relaxed inner diameter when the sheath is in the relaxed configuration”, and “the relaxed inner diameter being greater than the outer diameter of the hook” constitutes new matter since the originally filed disclosure fails to support this claimed subject matter.
Claim 11 is rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hargis (US Patent No. 10,899,419), in view of Mele (US Patent No. 5,325,567).
Regarding claim 1, Hargis discloses an adjustable tether for providing a connection between two points, the tether comprising:
a flexible sheath (see annotated Fig. 4) having:
at least one sidewall and a plurality of openings formed through the sidewall (see annotated Fig. 4); and
a conduit portion at least partially circumscribed by the at least one sidewall (see annotated Fig. 4);
an elastic member extending from a first portion of the sheath through the conduit portion of the sheath, and out of a first opening in the sidewall (see annotated Fig. 4);
the elastic member and the flexible sheath each being elastically extendible from a retracted configuration having a retracted length to a taut configuration having a taut length, the taut length being greater than the retracted length (see annotated Fig. 4);
the elastic member carrying at least one hook, the hook passing through the conduit portion and out of the first opening in the sidewall, engaging the sidewall adjacent the first opening to prevent or limit the hook from moving relative to the sidewall (see annotated Fig. 4; also Col. 6, lines 33-38).
Hargis does not disclose at least one hook having a gape, a bend and a throat defined between the gape and the bend,
However, Mele teaches at least one hook having a gape, a bend and a throat defined between the gape and the bend (see annotated Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hook from Hargis, with the hook from Mele having a gape, a bend and a throat in order to insert the hook through a desired location in the sidewall of the sheath and engage and applies force to the sheath.
Regarding claim 2, Hargis discloses does not disclose the conduit portion has a taut inner diameter when the sheath is in the taut configuration, and a relaxed inner diameter when the sheath is in the relaxed configuration, the taut inner diameter being less than an outer diameter of the hook and the relaxed inner diameter being greater than the outer diameter of the hook.
Regarding to the taut inner diameter, it is inherent that the taut inner diameter to be less than outer diameter of the hook when the sheath is in tension or taut configuration, and to the relaxed inner diameter, it is inherent that the relaxed inner diameter being greater than outer diameter of the hook when the sheath is in nontensioned or relaxed configuration.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Hargis in view of Mele discloses the claimed invention except for a size of the first opening is smaller when the sheath is in the taut configuration and expands when the sheath is in the retracted configuration. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have a size of the first opening is smaller when the sheath is in the taut configuration and expands when the sheath is in the retracted configuration, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), and Gardner v. TEC 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). It will be obvious that the size of the first opening is smaller at tension (taut configuration) than at no tension (retracted configuration).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Hargis in view of Mele discloses the claimed invention except for both the taut size of the first opening and a retracted size of the first opening are smaller than an outer diameter of the hook. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have both the taut size of the first opening and a retracted size of the first opening are smaller than an outer diameter of the hook, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), and Gardner v. TEC 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). It will be obvious that the size of the first opening is smaller than an outer diameter of the hook, at tension (taut configuration) than at no tension (retracted configuration).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Hargis in view of Mele discloses, wherein the hook is formed of a rigid material (see Col. 1, line 53-57 from Mele).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Hargis in view of Mele discloses, wherein the gape of the hook is smaller than a maximum opening size of the throat of the hook (see annotated Fig. 3 from Mele).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Hargis in view of Mele discloses the claimed invention except for the sidewall of the sheath includes a taut nominal thickness, and where the gape of the hook is smaller than the taut nominal thickness of the sidewall. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the sidewall of the sheath includes a taut nominal thickness, and where the gape of the hook is smaller than the taut nominal thickness of the sidewall, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), and Gardner v. TEC 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). It will be obvious to modify the gape size to be smaller than the sidewall of the sheath, in order to strongly engage the hook to the sidewall.
Regarding claim 8, Hargis discloses, wherein the elastic member carries a pair of hooks (34), each positioned on opposite ends of the elastic member (see Fig. 2; also Col. 7, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 9, Hargis discloses an adjustable tether for providing a connection between two points, the tether comprising:
a flexible sheath (see annotated Fig. 4) having:
at least one sidewall and a plurality of openings formed through the sidewall (see annotated Fig. 4); and
a conduit portion at least partially circumscribed by the at least one sidewall (see annotated Fig. 4);
an elastic member extending from a first portion of the sheath through the conduit portion of the sheath, and out of a first opening in the sidewall (see annotated Fig. 4);
the elastic member and the flexible sheath each being elastically extendible from a retracted configuration having a retracted length to a taut configuration having a taut length, the taut length being greater than the retracted length (see annotated Fig. 4);
the elastic member carrying at least one hook formed from a rigid material, the hook having a gape, a bend and a throat defined between the gape and the bend, the gape being smaller than a maximum opening size of the throat, the hook operable to passing through the conduit portion and out of the first opening in the sidewall and engaging within the throat the sidewall adjacent the first opening to prevent or limit the hook from moving relative to the sidewall (see annotated Fig. 4; also Col. 6, lines 33-38).
Hargis does not disclose at least one hook formed from a rigid material, the hook having a gape, a bend and a throat defined between the gape and the bend, the gape being smaller than a maximum opening size of the throat, and wherein the conduit portion has a taut inner diameter when the sheath is in the taut configuration, and a relaxed inner diameter when the sheath is in the relaxed configuration, the taut inner diameter being less than an outer diameter of the hook and the relaxed inner diameter being greater than the outer diameter of the hook.
However, Mele teaches at least one hook formed from a rigid material, the hook having a gape, a bend and a throat defined between the gape and the bend, the gape being smaller than a maximum opening size of the throat (see annotated Fig. 3; also Col. 1, line 53-57). Regarding to the taut inner diameter, it is inherent that the taut inner diameter to be less than outer diameter of the hook when the sheath is in tension or taut configuration, and to the relaxed inner diameter, it is inherent that the relaxed inner diameter being greater than outer diameter of the hook when the sheath is in nontensioned or relaxed configuration.
Regarding claim 11, Hargis discloses, wherein the elastic member carries a pair of hooks (34), each positioned on opposite ends of the elastic member (see Fig. 2; also Col. 7, lines 1-4).
PNG
media_image1.png
414
551
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
214
356
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-8, filed 05/20/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 9 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hargis (US Patent No. 10,899,419), in view of Mele (US Patent No. 5,325,567).
Hargis broadly discloses the hook (34) passes through the conduit portion and out of the first opening in the sidewall and engages, the sidewall adjacent the first opening to prevent or limit the hook from moving relative to the sidewall (see annotated Fig. 4 from Hargis). Mele teaches the throat of the hook (see annotated Fig. 3 from mele).
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 LOUIS A MERCADO whose telephone number is (571)270-5388. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 W. 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.
/LOUIS A. MERCADO/
Examiner
Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights