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 .
Claims 16-24 are currently pending.
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.
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 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodges (US D975936 S) in view of Young (US 20050229868 A1), hereafter referred to as “Young”, Kaufman (US 20020023595 A1), hereafter referred to as “Kaufman”, and Moulton (US 20040112303 A1), hereafter referred to as “Moulton”.
PNG
media_image1.png
760
1012
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2 of Rodges.
Regarding claim 16, Rodges a pet restraint system (figs. 1-7), comprising:
a leash (figs. 1-7) comprising:
a proximal section (see annotated figure 2 of Rodges above) comprising a proximal handle (annotated figure 2);
a distal section (annotated figure 2) comprising a distal handle (annotated figure 2);
an intermediate section (region between the distal section and proximal section; refer to annotated figure 2) comprising an intermediate handle (annotated figure 2, showing multiple handles) positioned between the proximal handle and the distal handle (annotated figure 2), wherein the proximal section integrally and non-releasably extends from the intermediate section (figs. 1-7 showing that the intermediate section is integral with the proximal section in a manner that cannot be separated);
a first connector positioned distally of the intermediate handle (annotated figure 2), the first connector being configured to couple with the distal handle (annotated figure 2), wherein the first connector is positioned at a distal end of the intermediate section (annotated figure 2); and
a second quick-release connector (annotated figure 2) positioned at a proximal end of the distal handle (annotated figure 2), the second connector being configured to couple with a portion of the leash comprising the proximal handle and the intermediate handle (figs. 1-7), wherein the second quick-release connector is configured to directly connect with the first connector (annotated figure 2) to connect the proximal end of the distal handle with the distal end of the intermediate section (annotated figure 2).
Rodges does not explicitly teach the system including a collar and wherein the distal handle defines a loop. As shown above, Rodges teaches multiple intermediate handles, but does not teach that the handles are formed from a continuous strap segment without passing through or around hardware, and wherein the intermediate handle comprises a loop having a fixed size and configured as a user control point for controlling the pet. In addition, Rodges teaches that the first connector works in cooperation with the second quick-release connector, but does not explicitly teach that the first connector is a quick-release connector.
Young teaches a system (figs. 1-4C) including a collar (paragraph [0024]) and a distal handle (52, 56, 44 or 54, 58, 46; fig. 2) defining a loop (52, 56 or 54, 58; fig. 2) configured as a user control point for controlling the pet (fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Rodges to include a collar, as taught by Young, in order to provide a matching, ready-to-use system without the need to separately search for a collar.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Rodges, such that the distal handle defines a loop, as further taught by Young, in order to provide an improved gripping point to gain control of the animal.
Kaufman teaches a system (figs. 1-4) including an intermediate handle (22, 26; fig. 1) positioned between a proximal handle (region formed between elements 12 and 34 in fig. 1) and a distal handle (16; fig. 1), wherein the intermediate handle is formed from a continuous strap segment without passing through or around hardware (fig. 1 and paragraph [0017]) ,and wherein the intermediate handle comprises a loop (22) having a fixed size (paragraph [0017]) and configured as a user control point for controlling the pet (paragraph [0017] and fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Rodges in view of Young to include an intermediate handle that is formed from a continuous strap segment without passing through or around hardware, and wherein the intermediate handle comprises a loop having a fixed size and configured as a user control point for controlling the pet, as taught by Kaufman, in order to provide an additional gripping point to keep the pet at a closer distance to the user (paragraph [0017] of Kaufman).
Moulton teaches a system (figs. 1-8) including a first quick-release connector (216 on element 221; fig. 8) that is configured to directly connect to a second quick-release connector (216 on element 210; fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Rodges in view of Young and Kaufman, such that the first connector is a quick-release connector, and such that the first and second quick-release connectors are configured to directly connect to each other, as taught by Young, in order to provide a cooperating first and second connector that is easily releasable with one hand.
Regarding claim 17, the combined teachings of Rodges in view of Young, Kaufman, and Moulton teaches the pet restraint system of claim 16, and further teaches that the distal handle (annotated figure 2 of Rodges) is configured to be selectively coupled with the collar (as relied on Young, paragraph [0024]) at a coupling location on the distal handle (annotated figure 2 of Rodges), and wherein the coupling location on the distal handle is adjacent to the proximal end of the distal handle (annotated figure 2 of Rodges).
Claims 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodges in view of Young, Kaufman, and Moulton as applied to claims 16 and 17 above, and further in view of Rapsoa (US 20240315207 A1), hereafter referred to as “Rapsoa.”
Regarding claim 18, Rodges in view of Young and Moulton teaches the pet restraint system of claim 17, but does not explicitly teach wherein the collar comprises a first coupling piece, and wherein the distal handle comprises a second coupling piece configured to selectively couple with the first coupling piece to allow the distal handle to be placed against the collar when the portion of the leash comprising the proximal handle and the intermediate handle is detached from the distal handle.
Rapsoa teaches a pet restrain system (figs. 1-13) including a collar (110) comprises a first coupling piece (115), and a distal handle (261, 260, 150; figs. 12-13) comprises a second coupling piece (155; figs. 12-13) configured to selectively couple with the first coupling piece to allow the distal handle to be placed against the collar (paragraphs [0038]-[0039]; figs. 8-9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pet restrain system of Rodges in view of Young, Kaufman, and Moulton, such that collar comprises a first coupling piece, and wherein the distal handle comprises a second coupling piece configured to selectively couple with the first coupling piece to allow the distal handle to be placed against the collar, as taught by Rapsoa, in order to improve the ease of accessing the distal handle in a variety of uses while provide a tangle-free means to secure the distal handle (paragraph [0004] of Rapsoa).
The combined teachings of Rodges in view of Young, Kaufman, Moulton, and Rapsoa would result in the first coupling piece to allow the distal handle to be placed against the collar when the portion of the leash comprising the proximal handle and the intermediate handle is detached from the distal handle.
Regarding claim 19, Rodges in view of Young, Kaufman, Moulton, and Rapsoa teaches the pet restraint system of claim 18, and Rapsoa further teaches wherein the first coupling piece (115) comprises a first patch of hook and loop material (paragraph [0010]; figs. 8-9 and 12-13), and wherein the second coupling piece (155) comprises a second patch of hook and loop material (paragraph [0010]; figs. 8-9 and 12-13).
Regarding claim 20, Rodges in view of Young, Kaufman, Moulton, and Rapsoa teaches the pet restraint system of claim 16, and Rodges further teaches wherein the portion of the leash comprising the proximal handle (annotated figure 2) and the intermediate handle (annotated figure 2) is defined by a single piece of integral material (figs. 1-7).
Regarding claim 21, the combined teaches of Rodges in view of Young, Kaufman, Moulton, and Rapsoa teaches the pet restraint system of claim 16, and further teaches wherein the distal handle (52, 56 or 54, 58 as relied on Young) is defined by a single loop of material extending from the second quick-release connector to a distal connector piece (fig. 2 of Young and annotated fig. 2 of Rodges), the distal connector piece configured to couple with the collar (annotated fig. 2 of Rodges).
Regarding claim 22, the combined teachings of Rodges in view of Young, Kaufman, Moulton, and Rapsoa teaches the pet restraint system of claim 21, and further teaches wherein the distal handle (annotated figure 2 of Rodges) is configured to releasably couple with the collar (via the distal connector piece of Rodges, annotated figure 2) along at least a portion of the single loop of material (52, 56 or 54, 58 as relied on Young; fig. 2).
Regarding claim 23, the combined teachings of Rodges in view of Young, Kaufman, Moulton, and Rapsoa teaches the pet restraint system of claim 22, and further teaches wherein the distal handle (annotated figure 2 of Rodges) is configured to releasably couple with the collar adjacent to the second quick-release connector adjacent to a proximal end of the distal handle opposite from the distal connector piece (annotated figure 2 of Rodges and figures 12-13 of Rapsoa).
Regarding claim 24, the combined teachings of Rodges in view of Young, Kaufman, Moulton, and Rapsoa teaches the pet restraint system of claim 16, and Rodges further teaches wherein the intermediate section (region between the distal section and proximal section; refer to annotated figure 2) further comprises a non-looped portion adjacent to and distal of the intermediate handle (fig. 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are unpersuasive and/or moot in light of the new grounds for rejection. As shown in the above rejection, independent claim 16 is rejected under the teachings of Rodges in view of Young, Kaufman, and Moulton. Kaufman is now relied upon to teach the limitations of the intermediate handle formed from a continuous strap segment without passing through or around hardware, and wherein the intermediate handle comprises a loop having a fixed size and configured as a user control point for controlling the pet. It is also noted that while Rodges is a design patent, one skilled in the art would understand that Rodges teaches a handle (see, e.g., annotated fig. 2 above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessica Byun whose telephone number is (571) 272-3212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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. Agendas may be sent to HaeRie.Byun@uspto.gov.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Poon can be reached on (571) 272-6891. 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.
/H.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646