CTFR 18/720,351 CTFR 84296 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5,8-11,13-14,16-17 and 20 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 10-11, 13-14, 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Caveney, U.S. Patent 8,701,252 . Regarding Claim 1 , Caveney teaches: a first layer (300) having a first connecting mechanism (loops) on a first surface of the first layer and a second connecting mechanism (320) on a second surface of the first layer (Figs. 8-9) , wherein the first surface and the second surface are on opposite surfaces of the first layer such that one may be viewed as being on a top of the first layer and the other viewed as being on a bottom of the first layer when the wrap is in an unwrapped state (Fig. 8-9) , the first connecting mechanism is removably attachable to the second connecting mechanism to transition the wrap between the unwrapped state and a wrapped state (see Figs. 4-5) , the first layer is configured to wrap around the plurality of lines, cords, tubes, or wires when the wrap is in a wrapped state (see Fig. 3) , a portion of the first layer overlaps another portion of the first layer when the wrap is in a wrapped state (Figs. 7, 9) , and the wrap is configured to interchangeably wrap such that either the top or the bottom of the first layer is facing outwards when in the wrapped state; and a second layer (330) attachably removable from the first layer, wherein the second layer is configured to interact with the plurality of lines, cords, tubes, or wires when the wrap is in the wrapped state (Figs. 3, 9) . **Examiner’s Note: Examiner notes that the above claim contains the claim language “configured to interchangeably…the wrapped state“, and a claim containing 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” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim because the prior art need only be capable of meeting the claimed limitations. See MPEP 2114 [R-1]. PNG media_image1.png 489 570 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding Claim 2 , Caveney teaches: The first connecting mechanism and the second mechanism are configured to allow variance in the amount of the portion of the first layer overlapping another portion of the first layer when the wrap is in the wrapped state (see Figs. 7, 9) . Regarding Claim 3 , Caveney teaches: Wherein the plurality of lines, cords, tubes, or wires are allowed to contact one another when the wrap is in the wrapped state (see Fig. 3) . Regarding Claim 4 , Caveney teaches: Wherein the first connecting mechanism and the second mechanism connect with hook and loop fasteners (see drawing selection above where 320 connects to 300 which are hook-and-loop fasteners) . Regarding Claim 8 , Caveney teaches: Wherein the second layer is configured to prevent slippage of the wrap with respect to the plurality of lines, cords, tubes, or wires when the wrap is in the wrapped state (see 230, see Abstract) . Regarding Claims 10-11 , Caveney teaches: Wherein the first layer contains a flexible material (see Col 3, Lns 65-67) . wherein the first layer contains at least one of fabric or neoprene material (see Col 3, Lns 65-67) . Regarding Claim 13 , Caveney teaches: At least a portion of the first layer includes material configured to protect the plurality of lines, cords, tubes, or wires from pinching when force is imparted on the wrap in the wrapped state (see Fig. 3, note that the cords, tube, lines or wires are protected in this configuration) . Regarding Claim 14 , Caveney teaches the limitations of this claim because they are identical to the limitations of Claim 1 aside from the preamble reciting “an apparatus” rather than “a wrap” and the prior art clearly teaches an apparatus. Regarding Claim 16 , Caveney teaches: Wherein the first connecting mechanism and the second mechanism connect with hook and loop fasteners (see drawing selection above where 320 connects to 300 which are hook-and-loop fasteners) . Regarding Claim 20 , Caveney teaches: Wherein the first layer contains a flexible material (see Col 3, Lns 65-67) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 5, 9 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caveney ‘252 as applied to claim s 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Martinez, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0351524 . Regarding Claim 5 , Caveney is silent with regard to the first and second connecting mechanism connecting with magnets. Martinez teaches a similar device to that of Caveney which clearly establishes magnets and hook-and-loop connectors as equivalents (see Claim 6) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Cavenety with magnets because that would reduce the likelihood of the hooks and loops becoming filled with detritus which would reduce the effectiveness of the connectors. Regarding Claim 9 , Caveney is silent with regard to the first layer being reinforced with wires configured to resist unwrapping once the wrap is in the wrapped state. Martinez teaches the use of reinforcement wires (Claims 12-13) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Caveney with the wire as taught by Martinez because Caveney already teaches the use of auxiliary support layers (see 540) and the wire would allow the wrap to resist the hysteresis (or memory) of the cords/wires and would allow a user to manipulate them into a desired position. Regarding Claim 17 , the limitations of this claim are identical to those of Claim 5 and are therefore rejected under Caveney-Martinez in light of the rejection of Claim 14 . Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 MATTHEW J SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5218. The examiner can normally be reached IFP, Typically M-Th, 8:00-6:00, regular Fr availability. 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. /MATTHEW J SULLIVAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3677 /JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677 Application/Control Number: 18/720,351 Page 2 Art Unit: 3677 Application/Control Number: 18/720,351 Page 3 Art Unit: 3677 Application/Control Number: 18/720,351 Page 4 Art Unit: 3677 Application/Control Number: 18/720,351 Page 6 Art Unit: 3677
Prosecution Insights