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 Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 11, line 2 it appears that “device” should be --devices-- for proper grammar.
In claim 19, line 2 it appears that “device” should be --devices-- for proper grammar.
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 7-8, 17-18, and 20 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.
In claim 7, it is not clear how “the top portion of the body component comprises a swivel hook component” while claim 2 recites “the body component and the hook component are a once-piece fixed component.” These two limitations appear to be mutually exclusive.
In claim 17, Applicant recites that “the top portion of the body component comprises a swivel hook component.” This appears to be a double recitation of “a hook component” recited in claim 13. Additionally, the language of claim 17 is confusing because in claim 13, the body component and hook component are recited as separate elements, but claim 17 recites that the body component “comprises” a swivel hook component. For purposes of expediting examination, claim 17 will be interpreted as follows:
--17. The hook an catch device of claim 13, wherein the hook component comprises a swivel hook component.--
In claim 20, line 9, it is not clear if “a top opening” is one of the three openings previously recited or if it is an additional, fourth opening. Also, the phrase “top opening” has no clear meaning since Applicant has not recited a directional framework of the device. For purposes of expediting examination, the top opening will be interpreted as an opening closest to the hook component.
In the last line of claim 20, “the first device” has no antecedent basis in the claims. For purposes of expediting examination, “the first device” will be interpreted as the “hook and catch device” recited in line 3 of claim 20.
Due to the above mentioned 112(b) problems with claims 7-8, prior art could not be accurately applied to these claims at this time. Once the 112(b) problems have been overcome, and relevant prior art will then be applied claims 7-8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leon (US 2012/0102680).
With respect to claim 1, Leon discloses a hook and catch device that is used as a tie-down hook, the hook and catch device comprising:
a body component; and
a hook component; and wherein the hook component is secured to a top portion of the body component as shown below in the image taken from Fig. 1 of Leon:
[AltContent: textbox (body component)][AltContent: textbox (hook component)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
383
124
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the hook component is capable of being utilized to secure the hook and catch device in position on a vehicle; and
further wherein the body component comprises a plurality of openings A, B, and C (as shown above) capable of use to thread a strap through to secure the hook and catch device in position over cargo.
With respect to claim 2, Leon discloses that the body component and the hook component are a one-piece fixed component capable for use as a tie-down hook.
With respect to claim 3, it is noted that Applicant is not reciting the strap as part of the claimed invention. Instead, the claimed invention is recited as being usable with a strap. Nevertheless, Leon discloses that the strap is a rope or a cord (Leon, abstract).
With respect to claim 4, Leon discloses that the body component has a substantially flat rectangular shape and comprises a front portion opposite a back portion, opposing side portions, and opposing top and bottom portions (as shown in Figs. 1-3 of Leon).
With respect to claim 5, Leon discloses that hook component is a rounded hook (as shown in Fig. 3 of Leon) and the hook and catch device disclosed by Leon is capable of being to secure about an attachment point of a vehicle.
With respect to claim 9, Leon discloses that the plurality of openings comprises three openings, a first opening A near the top portion, a second opening B in the middle, and a third opening C near the bottom portion (as shown in Fig. 1 of Leon).
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chou (US 6,006,405).
With respect to claim 1, Chou discloses a hook and catch device that is used as a tie-down hook, the hook and catch device comprising:
a body component; and
a hook component 21; and wherein the hook component is secured to a top portion of the body component as shown below in the image taken from Fig. 1 of Chou:
[AltContent: textbox (hook component)][AltContent: textbox (body component)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image2.png
245
188
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the hook component is capable of being utilized to secure the hook and catch device in position on a vehicle; and
further wherein the body component comprises a plurality of openings 221, 222, and 223 (as shown above) capable of use to thread a strap through to secure the hook and catch device in position over cargo.
With respect to claim 2, Chou discloses that the body component and the hook component 21 are a one-piece fixed component (as shown in Fig. 3 of Chou) capable for use as a tie-down hook.
With respect to claim 3, it is noted that Applicant is not reciting the strap as part of the claimed invention. Instead, the claimed invention is recited as being usable with a strap. Nevertheless, Leon discloses that the strap is a rope (Chou, col. 2, lines 1-3).
With respect to claim 4, Chou discloses that the body component has a substantially flat rectangular shape (to the extent that Applicant discloses a rectangular shape in the wire hook embodiment) and comprises a front portion opposite a back portion, opposing side portions, and opposing top and bottom portions (as shown in Fig. 3 of Chou).
With respect to claim 6, Chou discloses that the hook component is a wire hook and the body component is a wire body component (Chou, abstract).
Claims 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jung et al. (KR 101609132).
With respect to claim 13, Jung et al. disclose a hook and catch device 2 that is used as a tie-down hook, the hook and catch device comprising:
a body component with a substantially flat rectangular shape and comprising a front portion opposite aback portion, opposing side portions, and opposing top and bottom portions; and a hook component 21 as shown below in the image taken from Fig. 2 of Jung et al.:
[AltContent: textbox (first opening)][AltContent: textbox (third opening)][AltContent: textbox (second opening)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (bottom portion)][AltContent: textbox (top portion)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (body)][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image3.png
385
327
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and wherein the hook component 21 is secured to the top portion of the body component (as shown above);
wherein the hook component 21 is capable of being utilized to secure the hook and catch device 2 in position on a vehicle; and
wherein the body component comprises a first opening near the top portion, a second opening in the middle, and a third opening near the bottom portion capable of use to thread a strap through to secure the hook and catch device in position over cargo; and
further wherein in operation, a user is capable of utilizing a flexible lanyard to enter the third opening, then enters the second opening with the flexible lanyard, then enters the first opening, and finally, enters back into the third opening to secure the flexible lanyard within the body component (note, since this is an apparatus claim, the method of use holds no patentable weight in the claim).
With respect to claim 15, Jung et al. disclose that the hook component is a rounded hook (as shown in Fig. 2 of Jung et al.) and is capable of securing about an attachment point of a vehicle.
With respect to claim 17, Jung et al. disclose that the hook component comprises a swivel hook component (as shown in Figs. 2 and 5(b) of Jung et al.).
With respect to claim 18, The hook and catch device of claim 17, wherein the swivel hook component is a curved hook (as shown in Fig. 2 of Jung et al.) with a spring lock 6, which is secured via a pin connection 7 to the top portion (as shown in Figs. 2 and 5(b) of Jung et al.), allowing the curved hook to rotate about its axis.
With respect to claim 19, Jung et al. disclose that the hook and catch device 2 is capable for use as a cargo hook extension by securing two hook and catch device together.
With respect to claim 20, Jung et al. disclose a method of securing tie-down straps, rope, cord, or a leash, the method comprising the following steps:
providing a hook and catch device 2 comprising a body component with three openings and a hook/swivel hook component 21, as shown below in the image taken from Fig. 2 of Jung et al.:
[AltContent: textbox (openings)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (body)][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image3.png
385
327
media_image3.png
Greyscale
securing the hook or swivel hook component to a desired vehicle or object (as shown in Fig. 1 of Jung et al.);
threading a lanyard, cargo strap 3, rope, rubber strap, or cord through the three openings (as shown in Fig. 1 of Jung et al.) to secure the device in position; and
utilizing a second device 2 as an extension of a first device 2 by securing the second device 2 via the hook 21 component to a top opening of the first device 2 (as shown in Fig. 1 of Jung et al.).
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.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leon (US 2012/0102680).
With respect to claim 10, Leon discloses the claimed hook and catch device, except that he is silent on the exact ration of size of the third opening compared to the first and second openings. Leon discloses that the third opening A is larger in size (Leon, paragraph [0008]; Fig. 1).
While Leon is silent on the size of the third opening A with respect to the first and second openings C and B, It has been held that a mere change in size does not patentably distinguish over the prior art:
In re Rose , 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package “of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck” where held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) (“mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.” 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
In this case, the claimed device would not perform differently than the device disclosed by Leon due to the exact ratio of size difference between the third opening and the first and second openings.
With respect to claim 11, the hook and catch device disclosed by Leon is capable of being used as a cargo hook extension by securing two hook and catch devices together.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leon (US 2012/0102680), as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Jones (US 10,703,251).
With respect to claim 12, Leon discloses the claimed hook and catch device except that he is silent on whether the body component comprises a covering that comprises a rubberized material for durability and protection and a phosphorescent material for illuminating under low-light conditions.
However, Jones teaches a similar hook and catch device with a hook component 13 and a body component 14 with a covering that comprise a rubberized material (Jones, col. 3, lines 65-68) for durability and protection and a phosphorescent material (Jones, col. 3, line 68-col. 4, lines 1-2) for illuminating under low-light conditions.
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Jones with the hook and catch device disclosed by Leon for the advantage of a more durable and corrosion resistant device and for the advantage of a device that can be seen more easily in low-light conditions.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (KR 101609132).
With respect to claim 14, Jung et al. disclose the claimed hook and catch device except for the plurality of indicia. However, USPTO personnel need not give patentable weight to printed matter absent a new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate. See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See MPEP § 2111.05. In this case, Applicant has not disclosed any functional relationship between the plurality of indicia and the substrate (i.e., the hook and catch device). Thus, the provision of a plurality of indicia is simply an obvious matter of adornment or identification of the hook and catch device.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (KR 101609132), as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Chou (US 6,006,405).
With respect to claim 16, Jung et al. appears to depict the hook component and body component as made of wire, but Jung et al. is silent on this. However, Chou teaches a similar hook and catch device made with a hook component 21 that is a wire hook and a body component that is a wire body component (Chou, abstract).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Chou with the hook and catch device disclosed by Jung et al. for the advantage of the ease low cost in manufacturing. The wire merely needs to be bent into shape and doesn’t require any molding or melting processes.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Carter, Loomis, Hirsch, and McIver are cited to show other examples of a hook and catch device with a hook component and a body component which includes three openings. Martinez is cited to show a hook and catch device with a body component including a plurality of openings and a swivel hook component attached to the body component wherein the swivel hook includes a curved hook, a spring lock and a pin connection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J COLILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-2157. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 4:00.
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5500. 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.
/Daniel J Colilla/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612