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 .
Response to Remarks
Applicant's remarks filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Applicant’s remarks directed to 35 USC § 112 are considered, but the examiner respectfully disagrees. It is unclear if Applicant is attempting to positively recite the user. Claim 1 recites “the line is positioned around a neck of the user . . . .” (Claims, page 2). Claim 11 recites “positioning the user for selectively engaging . . . .” (Claims, page 4).
Applicant’s remarks with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection. Further interpretation is set forth below in the Office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, another of a fastener of claim 12 engageable to a band defining a pair of subloops or the comprehensively claimed system with multiple bands, split rings, and multiple selected vaporizers must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 4, 6, 11, 12, and 14, the phrase "such that" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 1, 11, and 14, it is not apparent if Applicant is attempting to positively recite the user or not; positive recitations of a user would raise 35 U.S.C. § 101 issues. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 unclearly recites including the kit, expanding on a claimed system, comprising a fastener . . . defines a pair of subloops” when “a fastener” has already been claimed in claim 1 which claim 12 depends from claim 11 depends from claim 1; this is double inclusion and renders the claim vague and indefinite.
Dependent claims that depend upon a rejected claim are also rejected.
The claims are replete with 112 issues and the above is not an exhaustive list.
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 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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated over Balogh, II (U.S. 2003/0141325 Fig. 6) [325].
Regarding Claim 1, as best understood, Reference [325] discloses a vaporizer retaining system comprising: a vaporizer (12); a line (24) having opposed ends, the opposed ends being mutually engaged such that the line defines a loop, wherein the loop is configured for insertion of a head of a user, the line is positioned around a neck of the user; a band (94) engaged to the line, the band being resiliently stretchable, wherein the band is configured positionable around the vaporizer for rebounding for removably frictionally engaging the vaporizer, wherein the vaporizer is removably engaged to the line; and a fastener (96) selectively engageable to the band such that the band defines a pair of subloops, the fastener being selectively positionable on the band such that the subloops (32, 32 are various sizes) are selectively sizeable, such that a respective subloop is sizeable to a selected vaporizer.
The Examiner notes that a user is considered as intended use. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding Claim 2, as best understood, Reference [325] discloses further including a connector (100) engaged to the line and being selectively engageable to the band.
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 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, 2, 5, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldstone et al. (U.S. 2008/0251553) [553] in view of Balogh, II (U.S. 2003/0141325 Fig. 9) [325].
Regarding Claim 1, as best understood, Reference [553] discloses a vaporizer retaining system comprising: a line (16) having opposed ends, the opposed ends being mutually engaged such that the line defines a loop, wherein the loop is configured for insertion of a head of a user, the line is positioned around a neck of the user; a band (32, 32) engaged to the line, the band being resiliently stretchable; and a fastener (D-ring connecting 32 to 22, Fig. 6) selectively engageable to the band such that the band defines a pair of subloops, the fastener being selectively positionable on the band such that the subloops (32, 32 are various sizes) are selectively sizeable, such that a respective subloop is sizeable, but does not explicitly disclose a vaporizer.
Nevertheless, Reference [325] teaches a vaporizer (inhaler, 12).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the elastic band connector connection of Reference [553] with connection of an inhaler as taught by Reference [325] in order have a medication inhaler being readily at hand in event of an asthmatic or allergic attack (abstract).
Regarding Claim 2, as best understood, the previously made combination of Reference [553] / [325] discloses further including a connector (36 of Ref. [553]) engaged to the line and being selectively engageable to the band.
Regarding Claim 5, as best understood, the previous combination of Reference [553] / [325] and reasoning above discloses further wherein the band comprises rubber, silicone, or elastomer (elastic).
Regarding Claim 6, as best understood, the previous combination of Reference [553] / [325] and reasoning above discloses wherein the band is one of a plurality of bands (32, 32, 32), each band having a respective circumference, such that the plurality of bands comprises bands having a variety of circumferences, wherein a respective band having a circumference complementary to a selected vaporizer is configured for selectively stretching for positioning around the selected vaporizer and for rebounding for removably engaging the selected vaporizer, such that the selected vaporizer is removably engaged to the line.
Regarding Claim 8, as best understood, Reference [267] discloses the claimed invention, but does not explicitly disclose further wherein the fastener comprises a cinch bead (3 of [835]).
Nevertheless, Reference [325] teaches a cinch bead (118).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the fastener of Reference [553] with cinch slide as taught by Reference [325] in order be able to easily encircle and grip the inhaler.
Claims 1-5, 8, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudnick et al. (U.S. 11,224,267) [267] in view of Derr (U.S. 2016/0208835) [835].
Regarding Claim 1, as best understood, Reference [267] discloses a vaporizer retaining system comprising: a line (102) having opposed ends, the opposed ends being mutually engaged such that the line defines a loop, wherein the loop is configured for insertion of a head of a user, the line is positioned around a neck of the user; but does not explicitly disclose a vaporizer or a band engaged to the line, the band being resiliently stretchable; and a fastener selectively engageable to the band such that the band defines a pair of subloops, the fastener being selectively positionable on the band such that the subloops are selectively sizeable, such that a respective subloop is sizeable.
Nevertheless, Reference [835] teaches a vaporizer (electronic cigarette); a band (1), the band being resiliently stretchable; and a fastener (3) selectively engageable to the band such that the band defines a pair of subloops, the fastener being selectively positionable on the band such that the subloops are selectively sizeable, such that a respective subloop is sizeable, and
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the necklace system of Reference [267] with connection of a universal securement strap (7, 8, 2, 3, 1, 9) for an electronic cigarette as taught by Reference [835] in order to retain and secure items of personal property without slippage.
Regarding Claim 2, as best understood, the previous combination of Reference [267] / [835] and reasoning above discloses further including a connector (7 of [835]) engaged to the line and being selectively engageable to the band.
Regarding Claim 3, as best understood, the previous combination of Reference [267] / [835] and reasoning above discloses further wherein the connector comprises a lobster clasp (claw).
Regarding Claim 4, as best understood, the previous combination of Reference [267] / [835] and reasoning above discloses further including: a pair of first rings (ornamental elements nearest to 112 of [267]) engaged singly to the opposed ends of the line; and a second ring (ring attached to 112 of [267]) engaged to the connector, the second ring being loopedly engaged to the pair of first rings, such that the line defines the loop and the connector is engaged to the line.
Regarding Claim 5, as best understood, the previous combination of Reference [267] / [835] and reasoning above discloses further wherein the band comprises rubber (silicone rubber of [835]), silicone, or elastomer.
Regarding Claim 8, as best understood, the previous combination of Reference [267] / [835] and reasoning above discloses further wherein the fastener comprises a cinch bead (3 of [835]).
Regarding Claim 9, as best understood, the previous combination of Reference [267] / [835] and reasoning above discloses further including a split ring (8 of [835]) engaged to the band and being selectively engageable to the connector.
Regarding Claim 10, as best understood, the previous combination of Reference [267] / [835] and reasoning above discloses further including a plurality of beads (beads) engaged to the line. The Examiner notes that base reference [267] discloses the ornamental members may include, without limitation, beads.
The Examiner notes that prior art, not relied upon, U.S. 2024/0074552 also discloses beads on an article.
Claims 6, 11, 12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudnick et al. (U.S. 11,224,267) [267] in view of Derr (U.S. 2016/0208835) [835] and further in view of Sanders (U.S. 9,277,744) [744].
Regarding Claim 6, as best understood, the previous combination of Reference [267] / [835] and reasoning above discloses the claimed invention, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the band is one of a plurality of bands, each band having a respective circumference, such that the plurality of bands comprises bands having a variety of circumferences, wherein a respective band having a circumference complementary to a selected vaporizer is configured for selectively stretching for positioning around the selected vaporizer and for rebounding for removably engaging the selected vaporizer, such that the selected vaporizer is removably engaged to the line.
Nevertheless, Reference [744] teaches a plurality of bands (14, 16), each band having a respective circumference, such that the plurality of bands comprises bands having a variety of circumferences, wherein a respective band having a circumference complementary to a selected vaporizer is configured for selectively stretching for positioning around the selected vaporizer and for rebounding for removably engaging the selected vaporizer, such that the selected vaporizer is removably engaged to the line.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system of Reference [267] / [835] to duplicate the securement straps of Ref. [835], with multiple attachment means and sizes as taught by Reference [744] in order to yield the predictable result of holding multiple items, vaporizers, around a user’s neck.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have had multiple securement straps of Ref. [835] as demonstrated by the multiple attachment means of [744], since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Please note that in the instant application, page 4, line 26, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations. The Examiner notes that the elastic band of Ref. [835] is adjustable to hold varying sizes.
PNG
media_image1.png
812
619
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, as best understood, the previous combination of Reference [267] / [835] / [744] and reasoning as applied to the rejection of claim 6 above discloses the claimed invention and reasoning above discloses the band being one of a plurality of bands, each band having a respective circumference, such that the plurality of bands comprises bands having a variety of circumferences; a pair of first rings engaged singly to the opposed ends of the line; a second ring loopedly engaged to the pair of first rings, such that the line defines the loop; a lobster clasp engaged to the second ring; the line and the plurality of bands being configured as a kit; and wherein a respective band selectable from the plurality of bands and having a circumference complementary to a selected vaporizer is configured for selectively stretching for positioning around the selected vaporizer and for rebounding for removably engaging the selected vaporizer, positioning the user for selectively engaging the lobster clasp to the split ring engaged to the respective band, such that the vaporizer is engaged to the line, but does not explicitly disclose a plurality of split rings, each split ring being engaged to a respective band.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system of Reference [267] / [835] / [744] with multiple attachment means attached by split rings (Ref. [835] teaches key ring 8 as applied in the rejection of claim 9 above) in order to yield the predictable result of being able versatilely clip or attach each attachment means to the combination necklace/lanyard by split rings.
Regarding Claim 12, as best understood, the previous combination of Reference [267] / [835] / [744] and reasoning as applied to the rejections above discloses further including the kit comprising a fastener selectively engageable to a respective band such that the respective band defines a pair of subloops, the fastener being selectively positionable on the respective band such that the subloops are selectively sizeable, such that a respective subloop is sizeable to the selected vaporizer, the fastener comprising a cinch bead. The Examiner notes that multiple securement straps of Ref. [835] as applied in the rejections above would have multiple cinches 3 to meet the claim as currently recited.
Regarding Claim 14, as best understood, the previous combination of Reference [267] / [835] / [744] and reasoning as applied to the rejections above discloses a vaporizer; a line having opposed ends, the opposed ends being mutually engaged such that the line defines a loop, wherein the loop is configured for insertion of a head of a user, wherein the line is positionable around a neck of the user; a pair of first rings engaged singly to the opposed ends of the line; a band engaged to the line, the band being resiliently stretchable, wherein the band is stretchable for positioning around the vaporizer for removably frictionally engaging the vaporizer, wherein the vaporizer is removably engaged to the line, the band comprising rubber, silicone, or elastomer, the band is one of a plurality of bands, each band having a respective circumference, such that the plurality of bands comprises bands having a variety of circumferences, wherein a respective band having a circumference complementary to a selected vaporizer is configured for selectively stretching for positioning around the selected vaporizer and for rebounding for removably engaging the selected vaporizer, such that the selected vaporizer is removably engaged to the line; a fastener selectively engageable to the band such that the band defines a pair of subloops, the fastener being selectively positionable on the band such that the subloops are selectively sizeable, such that a respective subloop is sizeable to a selected vaporizer, the fastener comprising a cinch bead; a connector engaged to the line and being selectively engageable to the band, the connector comprising a lobster clasp; a split ring engaged to the band and being selectively engageable to the connector; and a second ring engaged to the connector, the second ring being loopedly engaged to the pair of first rings, such that the line defines the loop and the connector is engaged to the line.
Regarding Claim 15, as best understood, the previous combination of Reference [267] / [835] / [744] and reasoning as applied to the rejections above discloses further including a plurality of beads (beads of Ref. [267]) engaged to the line.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Examiner notes U.S. 11,246,386 disclosing numerous connections and configurations for attachment components of jewelry. U.S. 2004/0200236 discloses a similar lanyard device as the claimed invention disclosing beads.
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 JASON W SAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6531. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM-5PM.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached on 571-272-8105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677