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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Joseph (US 3,995,872 A).
Regarding claim 1, Joseph discloses a break-away wrist strap for a pole, said wrist strap comprising a tensile element (flexible leash 1), an adjustment element (slide 9) and a clip (removable clip 4), where the tensile element is configured into a wrist loop and an extension portion by the adjustment element (Fig. 1), the size of the wrist loop and the length of the extension portion being adjustable by the adjustment element (Col. 2, Lns. 62-64), and the extension portion extends from the adjustment element to the clip attached to an end of the tensile element (Fig. 1), and where the clip has a shape designed to detachably couple to the pole by elastically deforming to snap-fit over an outer diameter of the pole (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Joseph discloses the wrist strap according to Claim 4. Joseph further discloses wherein the adjustment element is a push-button toggle (slide 9) slidably positionable along the tensile element enabling adjustment of the size of the wrist loop and the length of the extension portion (Col. 2, Lns.35-37; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Joseph discloses the wrist strap according to Claim 1. Joseph further discloses wherein the clip has a C-shape with internal walls forming a portion of a cylinder having a diameter smaller than the outer diameter of the pole (Col. 2, Lns. 4-56; Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 8, Joseph discloses the wrist strap according to Claim 7. Joseph further discloses wherein a material of construction, the diameter and wall thickness dimensions of the clip are chosen to result in a break-away force in a defined range, where the break-away force is a tensile force which causes the clip to detach from the pole (removable clip 4; Figs. 1-3; Col. 2, Lns 4-56).
Regarding claim 9, Joseph discloses the wrist strap according to Claim 1. Joseph further discloses wherein the pole is configured for use in an activity including snow skiing (Col. 1, Lns. 1-3).
Regarding claim 10, Joseph discloses the wrist strap according to Claim 1. Joseph further discloses wherein the pole (pole 2) has a grip (handle 3) element fitted over an upper end of the pole (Fig. 1), and the wrist strap (leash 1) is configured for attachment of the clip (clip 4) to the pole at a location proximal a lower end of the grip element (Fig. 1).
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 2, 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joseph in view of Marks et al. (US 2022/0258031 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Joseph discloses the wrist strap according to Claim 1. Joseph doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the tensile element is made of a flat strap webbing material.
Marks et al., however, teaches where his tensile element is made of a flat strap webbing material (Para. 0037). Marks et al. and Joseph are considered analogous art because they are both poles that have hand straps.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have included where the tensile element was made of a flat strap webbing material as taught by Marks et al. on the invention of Joseph, since this type of strap is comfortable against the hand and reduces possible impact injury.
Regarding claim 4, Joseph discloses the wrist strap according to Claim 1.
Joseph doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the tensile element is made of a round cord
Marks et al., however, teaches where his tensile element is made of a round cord (Para. 0037). Marks et al. and Joseph are considered analogous art because they are both poles that have hand straps.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have included where the tensile element was made of a round cord as taught by Marks et al. on the invention of Joseph, since this type of strap is comfortable against the hand and reduces possible impact injury.
Regarding claim 6, Joseph discloses the wrist strap according to Claim 1.
Joseph doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the wrist loop has a padding material affixed to or fitted over the tensile element.
Marks et al., however, teaches where wherein the wrist loop has a padding material affixed to or fitted over the tensile element (Para. 0080). Marks et al. and Joseph are considered analogous art because they are both poles that have hand straps.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have included wherein the wrist loop has a padding material affixed to or fitted over the tensile element as taught by Marks et al. on the invention of Joseph, since this type of strap is comfortable against the hand and reduces possible impact injury.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joseph in view of Watry (US 2017/0296907 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Joseph discloses the wrist strap according to Claim 2. Joseph differs from the invention as claimed because Joseph does not disclose wherein the adjustment element is a compound buckle enabling independent adjustment of the size of the wrist loop and the length of the extension portion.
Watry, however, teaches wherein the adjustment element is a compound buckle enabling independent adjustment of the size of the wrist loop and the length of the extension portion (Para. 0046). Watry. and Joseph are considered analogous art because they are both poles that have hand straps.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have included wherein the adjustment element is a compound buckle enabling independent adjustment of the size of the wrist loop and the length of the extension portion as taught by Watry on the invention of Joseph for the purpose of being able to increase or decrease the size of the hand loop to customize it to the specifics of the user’s hand size.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 11 contains subject matter was previously indicated as allowable in the examination of US patent 11,878,233 A (independent claim 1). As such, claim 11 is allowable for the reasons stated in the notice of allowability dated 9/22/2023. Claims 12 and 13 depend from claim 11.
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art does not disclose a storage clip configured for snap fit onto and slidable positioning along the pole, the storage clip including a hook element shaped to receive a segment of the tensile element in the wrist loop and thereby hold the wrist strap in a substantially fixed position alongside a length of the pole.
Claims 15 and 20 are allowed for the same reasons as claim 11. Both claims 15 and 20 contain subject matter that was indicated as allowable in the examination of US patent 11,878,233 A. The prior art of record does not teach or fairly disclose: the primary grip element has a grip top positioned above the first end of the grip body, the grip top having a rounded top surface blending into a rear face of the conical shape at the first end of the grip body with no overhang, and a front flange overhanging a front face of the grip body as claimed by applicant in claims 15 & 20. Additionally, claims 16-19 depend from claim 15 and claims 21-24 depend from claim 20.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and cited on PTO Form 892 is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Conclusion
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HILARY LYNN JOHNS whose telephone number is (313) 446-4852. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00-5:30.
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, J Allen Shriver can be reached on 303 297-4337. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/HILARY L JOHNS/Examiner, Art Unit 3613