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 1-3, 14, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dubelier (US 3,099,271).
Regarding claim 1, Dubelier discloses an apparatus comprising:
a securing member (350); and
an elastic string (322; Column 2, lines 5-17 describe the elasticity of the bands used in the invention) coupled to the securing member such that at least two loops are formed, a first loop being smaller than a second loop of the at least two loops (the securing member forms two loops on opposed ends of the securing member as shown in Fig. 10), the elastic string comprising a single string forming a large loop that is coupled to the securing member at two points along the string to form the at least two loops (Fig. 8 as shown); and
a tab member (324) for securing and removing the second loop to and from the securing member, the tab member comprising a flexible material that is formed into the second loop (Column 2, lines 21-24 describe wherein the material is bendable),
wherein the securing member comprises a geometry that retains the elastic string when the first or second loops are looped around the securing member while permitting securing and removal of the first or second loops (Fig. 8 as shown).
Regarding claim 2, Dubelier further discloses an anchor (351) that is used to couple the elastic string to an interior of the securing member.
Regarding claim 3, Dubelier further discloses wherein the anchor comprises a base member that is coupled to the interior of the securing member (351 is shown attached to a bottom of 350) and a securing arm that is bent onto the string to secure the string to the anchor (351 circumscribes the string).
Regarding claim 14, Dubelier further wherein the securing member comprises a spherical shape (Fig. 8 as shown).
Regarding claim 16, Dubelier further discloses wherein the securing member comprises a half-spherical shape (Fig. 8 shows a spherical shape that includes a half-spherical shape).
Regarding claim 20, Dubelier discloses a method comprising:
providing a securing member (350);
providing an elastic string (322; Column 2, lines 5-17 describe the elasticity of the bands used in the invention);
coupling the elastic string to the securing member such that at least two loops are formed, a first loop being smaller than a second loop of the at least two loops (the securing member forms two loops on opposed ends of the securing member as shown in Fig. 10), the elastic string comprising a single string forming a large loop that is coupled to the securing member at two points along the string to form the at least two loops (Figs. 8 as shown); and
securing the second loop to the securing member using a tab member (324), the tab member comprising a flexible material that is formed into the second loop (Column 2, lines 21-24 describe wherein the material is bendable),
wherein the securing member comprises a geometry that retains the elastic string when the first or second loops are looped around the securing member while permitting securing and removal of the first or second loops (Fig. 8 as shown).
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brinson as applied to claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 5, Dubelier discloses the invention except for wherein the anchor is coupled to an interior of the securing member using an adhesive. It would have been obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to secure the anchor with adhesive because Applicant has not disclosed that the specific manner of securing the string within the securing member provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the adjustable securing member because it would also securely define the size of each first and second loop. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Brinson to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubelier as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 15, Dubelier discloses the invention except for wherein the securing member comprises a cubical shape. It would have been obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Dubelier with a cubical shape because Applicant has not disclosed that the particular shape provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the securing member of Dubelier because it would also be easily secured to a loop. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Brinson to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 MICHAEL S LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5735. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Jason San can be reached at (571) 272-6531. 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.
/M.S.L/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/ SPE, Art Unit 3677