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 Amendment
Amendment to claims of 11/25/2025 is acknowledged.
Specification objections in the Office action of 07/25/2025 are withdrawn.
Amendment to specification submitted on 11/25/2025 has been entered.
Claim objections in the Office action of 07/25/2025 are withdrawn.
Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 in the Office action of 07/25/2025 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on page 9, Thompson does not disclose claim 12 limitation “a grip apparatus.” Thompson discloses a safety shield 10 defining the grip apparatus, as in Figures 1-2, and 4. Applicant's argument is not persuasive.
Claim(s) that depend(s) from the rejected claim(s), that is, claim(s) 13-18 is/are rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Thompson (U.S. Pub. App. 2013-0133382).
For claim 12, Thompson discloses, in Figures 1-6, a grip apparatus for a handcuff forming a part of a pair of handcuffs interconnected by a tether (Pair of handcuffs 45 is connected with chain 48, which defines the tether. 10 defines the grip apparatus, Figures 1-2.), comprising:
said grip apparatus (10) being formed a shell (body of 10) having an upper portion forming a cavity therein defined by a pair of side walls (38), a forward wall (wall of 26 on the left side), a rearward wall (wall of 26 on the right side) and a bottom wall (32), the side walls being spaced apart sufficiently to receive a housing of the handcuff into said cavity (Handcuff housing 54 is within the cavity of the shell. Figures 1-4. Para. [0018]. The grip apparatus 10 accommodates the head portion 54 of cuffs and the chain 48, as in Figures 4-5.); and
a slotted opening (30, para. [0019]) formed in said forward wall to permit the vertical passage of the tether (48) into said cavity (Figure 5), said slotted opening extending into said bottom wall and terminating in said bottom wall at a centrally located passageway (Figures 1-2, and 4.9)
For claim 13, Thompson discloses the grip apparatus of Claim 12, further comprising: a keyway (36, para. [0028]) formed in one of said side walls for the engagement of a cuff key into a lock mechanism within said handcuff housing (Figure 4.)
For claim 14, Thompson discloses the grip apparatus of Claim 13, including an elevated portion (padlock, para. [0023]) on each said side wall to provide a grip surface for the thumb of the person using said handcuff.
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.
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson (U.S. Pub. App. 2013-0133382) in view of Giamas (U.S. Patent No. 6,305,814).
For claim 15, Thompson discloses the grip apparatus of Claim 13, but does not disclose wherein said keyway has a lighting device surrounding said keyway.
Giamas teaches a keyhole lighting fixture with controls and switches (abstract) and illuminated keyhole (Co. 1, L 59-61) to facilitate the operation in dark or subdued light. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thompson with a keyhole lighting device such that lighting device being operatively coupled to a switch housed within one of said side walls to activate said lighting device, said switch being located on the same side wall as said keyway and spaced therefrom, as taught by Giamas with a reasonable expectation of success of facilitating the operation in dark or subdued light environment.
For claim 16, Thompson modified with Giamas teaches the grip apparatus of Claim 15, wherein said lighting device is operatively coupled to a switch housed within one of said side walls to activate said lighting device (Giamas teaches a keyhole lighting fixture with controls and switches (abstract) and illuminated keyhole (Co. 1, L 59-61) to facilitate the operation in dark or subdued light as shown in claim 15. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thompson with features of Giamas such that the lighting device is operatively coupled to a switch housed within one of said side walls to activate said lighting device, as taught by Giamas with a reasonable expectation of success of facilitating the operation in dark or subdued light environment.)
For claim 17, Thompson modified with Giamas teaches the grip apparatus of Claim 16, wherein said switch is located on the same side wall as said keyway and spaced therefrom (Giamas teaches a keyhole lighting fixture with controls and switches (abstract) and illuminated keyhole (Co. 1, L 59-61) to facilitate the operation in dark or subdued light as shown in claim 15. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thompson with features of Giamas such that the switch is located on the same side wall as said keyway and spaced therefrom, as taught by Giamas with a reasonable expectation of success of facilitating the operation in dark or subdued light environment.)
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson (U.S. Pub. App. 2013-0133382) in view of Parsons et al. (U.S. Pub. App. 2007-0056332).
For claim 18, Thompson discloses the grip apparatus of Claim 12, but does not disclose wherein said grip apparatus is molded from plastic or rubber compounds that will hold the formed shape.
Parsons et al. teaches a handcuff with plastic covers (Para. [0009]), and plastic injection over mold (Para. [0012, 0021, and 0039]) for comfortable grip. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thompson with teachings of Parsons et al. such that the grip apparatus is molded from plastic or rubber compounds that will hold the formed shape, with a reasonable expectation of success of having a comfortable grip.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11, and 19-20 are allowed.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and provides examples of similar inventions. There are no suggestions in the prior art of record for combining any of the references to arrive at as claimed. A few of the prior art cited but not applied includes Elam (U.S. Patent No. 4,840,048), Savage (U.S. Patent No. 5,613381), and Earl (U.S. Patent No. 7,010,943).
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 NATHAN CUMAR whose telephone number is (571)270-3112. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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, KRISTINA FULTON can be reached at 571-272-7376. 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.
/NATHAN CUMAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675