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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 11/11/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4, line 2 “the retracted size” should be - - a retracted size - -.
Claim 4, line 2 “the outer diameter” should be - - an outer diameter - -.
Claim 10, line 2 “a tuat” should be - - a taut - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5 and 9 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.
The term “substantially” in claim 5 and 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is suggested to amend to - - a rigid material - -.
Claims 5 and 9 recites the subject matter “at least one hook formed from a substantially rigid material” is not properly described in the speciation. It is not clear that the original disclosure does not describe what the rigid material are made of.
Claims 6, 7, 10 and 11 are 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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hargis (US Patent No. 10,899,419), in view of Dobrikin (US Patent No. 2,991,524).
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);
Hargis does not disclose the elastic member carrying at least one hook having a gape, a bend and a throat defined between the gape and the bend, the hook operable to engage a material of the sidewall adjacent the first opening to prevent or limit the hook from moving relative to the sidewall.
However, Dobrikin teaches the elastic member carrying at least one hook having a gape, a bend and a throat defined between the gape and the bend, the hook operable (see annotated Fig. 2).
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 use the hooks from Dobrikin and attached to ends of the elastic member from Hargis to hold-down a tarp to a truck as taught by Dobrikin.
PNG
media_image1.png
414
551
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
532
269
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Hargis in view of Dobrikin discloses the claimed invention except for the conduit portion has a taut inner diameter when the sheath is in the taut configuration, the taut inner diameter being less than an outer diameter of the hook. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the conduit portion has a taut inner diameter when the sheath is in the taut configuration, the taut inner diameter being less 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).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Hargis in view of Dobrikin 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).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Hargis in view of Dobrikin discloses the claimed invention except for both the taut size of the first opening and the retracted size of the first opening are smaller than the 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 the retracted size of the first opening are smaller than the 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).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Hargis in view of Dobrikin discloses, wherein the hook is formed of a substantially rigid material (see annotated Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Hargis in view of Dobrikin discloses the claimed invention except for the gape of the hook is smaller than a maximum opening size of the throat of the hook. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the gape of the hook is smaller than a maximum opening size of the throat 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).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Hargis in view of Dobrikin 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).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Hargis in view of Dobrikin discloses, wherein the elastic member carries a pair of hooks, each positioned on opposite ends of the elastic member (see annotated Fig. 2).
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);
Hargis does not disclose the elastic member carrying at least one hook formed from a substantially 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 engage a material of the sidewall adjacent the first opening to prevent or limit the hook from moving relative to the sidewall.
However, Dobrikin teaches the elastic member carrying at least one hook formed from a substantially 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. 2),
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 use the hooks from Dobrikin and attached to ends of the elastic member from Hargis to hold-down a tarp to a truck as taught by Dobrikin.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Hargis in view of Dobrikin discloses the claimed invention except for the sidewall of the sheath includes a tuat 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).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Hargis in view of Dobrikin discloses, wherein the elastic member carries a pair of hooks, each positioned on opposite ends of the elastic member (see annotated Fig. 2).
Conclusion
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