DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This action is in response to the remarks dated 8/26/2025.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments
In view of the amendments to the title, abstract, and specification, the previous corresponding objections from the action dated 3/3/2025 are withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claim 15, the previous corresponding claim objection is withdrawn.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-12, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Simons (US 8,925,496 B2)(hereinafter Simons).
RE Claim 1: Simons discloses a device (Figs 3-4) comprising:
a first band (60),
a second band (90) attached to the first band (60)(Figs 3, 4), and
a fastener attached to the second band (70).
RE Claim 2: Simons discloses the device as claimed in claim 1 and previously discussed and further discloses
wherein the first band includes a buckle (108).
RE Claim 3: Simons discloses the device as claimed in claim 2 and previously discussed and further discloses
wherein the first band (60) includes a box stitch (between 64 and 108 as seen in Fig 3)(also between 108 and 68 in Fig 3).
RE Claim 4: Simons discloses the device as claimed in claim 3 and previously discussed and further discloses
wherein the second band includes a box stitch (near 92 as seen in Fig 3).
RE Claim 5: Simons discloses the device as claimed in claim 4 and previously discussed and further discloses
wherein the fastener is a snap hook (snap closure mechanism 70)(compare applicant’s 30 with Simons 70).
RE Claim 8: Simons discloses a device (Figs 3-4) comprising:
a first band (60) attached to a grooming arm (Fig 4),
a second band (90) having a ring band (ring connector 92) attached to the first band (60) by the ring band (92)(Fig 3), and
a fastener (70) attached to the second band (90).
RE Claim 9: Simons discloses the device as claimed in claim 8 and previously discussed and further discloses
wherein the first band (60) includes a box stitch (between 64 and 108 as seen in Fig 3)(also between 108 and 68 in Fig 3).
RE Claim 10: Simons discloses the device as claimed in claim 9 and previously discussed and further discloses
wherein the first band (60) includes a box stitch (between 64 and 108 as seen in Fig 3)(also between 108 and 68 in Fig 3).
RE Claim 11: Simons discloses the device as claimed in claim 10 and previously discussed and further discloses
wherein the second band includes a box stitch (near 92 as seen in Fig 3).
RE Claim 12: Simons discloses the device as claimed in claim 11 and previously discussed and further discloses
further discloses wherein the fastener is a snap hook (snap closure mechanism 70)(compare applicant’s 30 with Simons 70).
RE Claim 15: Simons discloses a device (Figs 5, 6) comprising:
a first band (see annotated Fig 5 below) attached to a grooming arm (Fig 6),
a second band (see annotated Fig 5 below) having a ring band (not numbered, see annotated Fig 5 below) attached to the first band by the ring band (first + second bands attached to each other via the grooming loop, ring band, and fasteners), and
the second band (see annotated Fig 5 below) is attached to a grooming loop (see annotated Fig 5 below) having a size adjustment ring (grooming loop is a collar and is adjustable via cam snap), the grooming loop configured to be wrapped around an animal’s neck (Fig 6),
wherein the grooming loop is attached to the grooming arm (Fig 6), and
a fastener (see annotated Fig 5 below) attached to the second band (see annotated Fig 5 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
806
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Simons Fig 5 Reproduced and Annotated
RE Claim 16: Simons discloses the device as claimed in claim 15 and previously discussed and further discloses
wherein the first band includes a buckle (camlock buckle on first band, compare with Applicant’s camlock buckle 25).
RE Claim 17: Simons discloses the device as claimed in claim 16 and previously discussed and further discloses
wherein the first band (annotated Fig 5) includes a box stitch (not numbered, but seen on the first band opposite the camlock).
RE Claim 18: Simons discloses the device as claimed in claim 17 and previously discussed and further discloses
wherein the second band includes a box stitch (not numbered, but seen on the second band near the ring band).
RE Claim 19: Simons discloses the device as claimed in claim 18 and previously discussed and further discloses
further discloses wherein the fastener is a snap hook (not numbered, shown in annotated Fig 5)(also equivalent to snap closure mechanism 70 in Fig 3)(compare with Applicant’s 30).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6-7, 13-14, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simons as applied to claims 5, 12, and 15 above, and further in view of Miron (US 8,297,234 B2)(hereinafter Miron).
RE Claim 6: Simons discloses the device as claimed in claim 5 as previously discussed.
Simons discloses the band may be made of material such as Nylon webbing, Polyester webbing, cotton webbing, cloth, or other similar materials per col 3, ln 14-17.
Simons does not explicitly teach wherein the first band is made of a rubber coated nylon material.
However, Miron teaches an animal restraint comprising a band (analogous art) and further teaches the band is made of a rubber coated nylon material (col 4, ln 30-40).
Therefore, 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 device of Simons in view of Miron such that the first band is made of a rubber coated nylon material as taught by Miron for the advantages of a durable strap that provides some degree of flexibility and rigidity.
RE Claim 7: Simons discloses the device as claimed in claim 1 as previously discussed.
Simons discloses the band may be made of material such as Nylon webbing, Polyester webbing, cotton webbing, cloth, or other similar materials per col 3, ln 14-17.
Simons does not explicitly teach wherein the second band is made of a rubber coated nylon material.
However, Miron teaches an animal restraint comprising a band (analogous art) and further teaches the band is made of a rubber coated nylon material (col 4, ln 30-40).
Therefore, 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 device of Simons in view of Miron such that the second band is made of a rubber coated nylon material as taught by Miron for the advantages of a durable strap that provides some degree of flexibility and rigidity.
RE Claim 13: Simons discloses the device as claimed in claim 12 as previously discussed.
Simons discloses the band may be made of material such as Nylon webbing, Polyester webbing, cotton webbing, cloth, or other similar materials per col 3, ln 14-17.
Simons does not explicitly teach wherein the first band is made of a rubber coated nylon material.
However, Miron teaches an animal restraint comprising a band (analogous art) and further teaches the band is made of a rubber coated nylon material (col 4, ln 30-40).
Therefore, 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 device of Simons in view of Miron such that the first band is made of a rubber coated nylon material as taught by Miron for the advantages of a durable strap that provides some degree of flexibility and rigidity.
RE Claim 14: Simons discloses the device as claimed in claim 8 as previously discussed.
Simons discloses the band may be made of material such as Nylon webbing, Polyester webbing, cotton webbing, cloth, or other similar materials per col 3, ln 14-17.
Simons does not explicitly teach wherein the second band is made of a rubber coated nylon material.
However, Miron teaches an animal restraint comprising a band (analogous art) and further teaches the band is made of a rubber coated nylon material (col 4, ln 30-40).
Therefore, 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 device of Simons in view of Miron such that the second band is made of a rubber coated nylon material as taught by Miron for the advantages of a durable strap that provides some degree of flexibility and rigidity.
RE Claim 20: Simons discloses the device as claimed in claim 15 as previously discussed.
Simons discloses the band may be made of material such as Nylon webbing, Polyester webbing, cotton webbing, cloth, or other similar materials per col 3, ln 14-17.
Simons does not explicitly teach wherein the first band is made of a rubber coated nylon material.
However, Miron teaches an animal restraint comprising a band (analogous art) and further teaches the band is made of a rubber coated nylon material (col 4, ln 30-40).
Therefore, 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 device of Simons in view of Miron such that the first band is made of a rubber coated nylon material as taught by Miron for the advantages of a durable strap that provides some degree of flexibility and rigidity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
RE Claims 1 and 8: Applicant’s arguments regarding the restraint of Simon on pages 2-3 of the remarks are with respect to a different embodiment of Simons. The rejections rely upon the embodiment approximated in Figs 3-4 and described in col 5, ln 19 – end.
Applicants argument that the Simons reference lacks two distinct bands attached to each other (clam 1) is not persuasive. See Fig 3 of Simons where there are two distinct bands (strips of material) that attach to each other via fastener 70. Also see col 5, ln 19 - end.
Applicants argument that Simons does not teach a ring band (claim 8) is not persuasive. There is no definition of ring band in Applicant’s specification. As best understood, connector 92 is a strip of material (band) in a closed shape (ring).
RE Claim 15: Applicant’s arguments regarding the restraint of Simon on pages 3-4 of the remarks are with respect to a different embodiment of Simons. The rejection relies upon the embodiment approximated in Figs 5-6.
The argument that Examiner’s mapping conflates Simons’ clamps with size adjustment rings is not persuasive because the grooming loop itself is a size adjustable ring due to the cam snap.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 dated 3/3/2025.
These documents present alternative designs similar in scope which illustrate relevant features in comparison to the Applicant’s submission. The cited prior art include pet restraint device with loops, fasteners, and buckles.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MARIA E GRABER whose telephone number is (571)272-4640. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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, Timothy D Collins can be reached on 571-272-6886. 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.
/MARIA E GRABER/Examiner, Art Unit 3644
/MONICA L PERRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644