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 § 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 1-10 and 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With Respect to Claim 1
The scope of the phrase “said clamp is an integral retractor” is unclear, noting that the clamp is not itself a retractor and there is no disclosure of a retractor other than the rectractor that is already recited in claim 1. For the purposes of examination on the merits, Examiner takes it to be a typo and to mean “said clamp is integral to said retractor”.
With Respect to Claims 1, 10-11, and 16
The scope of the limitation that the clamp be integral to the retractor is unclear, noting that claims 10 and 16 require that the clamp be mounted to the retractor which is coextensive in scope or broader than being integrally formed.
The remainder of this office action is based on the invention as best understood by Examiner. It is noted that the term “integral” is quite broad, and the broadest reasonable interpretation clearly encompasses movable mountings as dependent claims recite rotational attachment in addition to the integral formation recited in the independent claims.
With Respect to Claims 7 and 15
The scope of the phrase “suspender clamp” is unclear, noting that at its broadest it could be considered to encompass any clamp capable of suspending which seems to encompass all clamps, or it might be considered limited to some type of clamp used to secure garment style suspenders to a garment, but this scope is unclear as innumerable clamps are capable of this use and it is unclear what type of clamping structures the phrase should be limited to.
The remainder of this office action is based on the invention as best understood by Examiner.
With Respect to Claims 2-10 and 12-17
These claims are rejected as they depend from a rejected claim and so incorporate its indefinite scope.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 1 and 11 require integral attachment which is the same as or narrower than mounting, and so already require the scope of the limitations of claims 10 and 16. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: “rotably” should be “rotatably”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein at least” should be “wherein the at least”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, “surface” should be “surfaces”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent #2008/0313862 to Brekke-Hutchings (Hutchings). Hutchings discloses:
With Respect to Claim 1
A retractor and clamping system, comprising: a retractor (102) having a front and back surface, and at least one edge surface (top edge surface adjacent clamp arms 110); a clamp (110 and related structure) arranged for attaching directly to a user's piece of clothing (capable of this use), wherein said clamp is an integral retractor at a said surface of said retractor and wherein said clamp extends beyond said edge surface with said clamp opening away from said retractor (see, e.g. FIG. 3); a line (206) capable of being extended and retracted from and back into said retractor ([0016]); and a connector (107, 108, alone or in combination with 104 and/or 106) on said line for connecting to a personal article.
With Respect to Claim 3
The system of claim 1, wherein said clamp comprises a closing locking mechanism ([0019] discloses that the clamp arms can be locked into position which inherently indicates a closing locking mechanism).
With Respect to Claim 5
The system of claim 1, wherein said clamp is mounted to said edge surface of said retractor.
With Respect to Claim 6
The system of claim 1, wherein said clamp is rotably mounted to said retractor (FIG. 3, noting that both clamp arms are rotatable mounted to the retractor which is sufficient to meet this claim language).
With Respect to Claim 7
The system of claim 1, wherein said clamp comprises a suspender clamp (it is a clamp that is capable of suspending and is therefore a suspender clamp to the extent claimed).
With Respect to Claim 8
The system of claim 1, wherein at least one edge surface comprises a plurality of edge surfaces.
With Respect to Claim 9
The system of claim 8, wherein said line extends from a first of said edge surfaces and said clamp extends beyond a second of said edge surfaces, wherein said first edge surface is opposite said second edge surface (see, e.g. FIG. 3).
With Respect to Claim 10
The system of claim 1, wherein said clamp is mounted to said housing (see, e.g. FIG. 1).
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #8,191,815 to Huang (Huang), either alone or further in view of U.S. Patent #10,813,440 to Hernandez (Hernandez), and/or U.S. Patent Publication #2022/0007822 to Al-Jabry (Jabry).
With Respect to Claim 1
Huang discloses a retractor and clamping system, comprising: a retractor (10) having a front and back surface, and at least one edge surface; a clamp (alligator clip 70, FIG. 8) arranged for attaching directly to a user's piece of clothing, wherein said clamp is an integral retractor at a said surface of said retractor (it is integrally attached as the retractor and clamp form a single unit when attached), with said clamp opening away from said retractor (FIG. 8 shows this); a line (41) capable of being extended and retracted from and back into said retractor; and a connector (43, 42, 45) on said line for connecting to a personal article (capable of this use which is also the intended use, noting 5); and discloses that other connectors can be use and also that the connectors can extend beyond said edge surface (noting 70, FIG. 1); but does not disclose wherein said clamp extends beyond said edge surface
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to make the clamp longer so as to extend beyond the edge of the retractor as doing so constitutes at most a mere change in size/proportion which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)) or to adjust the clamp location so as to extend beyond the edge (e.g. to attach the clamp at the end opposite the opening rather than centrally) as doing so constitutes at most a mere rearrangement of parts which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04). Alternately, it would have been obvious to attach a clamp (70) as shown in FIG. 3 or similar thereto to the end of the connection member (70) shown in FIG. 1 as a mere selection of an art appropriate connector to attach there, to allow attachment to objects via the clamp, and/or to allow for the retractor to hang below the attachment location (relative to the FIG. 8 embodiment).
Alternately, Hernandez discloses a similar fall prevention device including a clamp (12) for attaching to a user’s clothing that is located above and extends above an edge surface of and opens in a direction away from a retractor (noting 32, see e.g. FIG. 3) which provides additional motivation for and/or evidence of the obviousness of forming the Huang structure in this fashion.
Alternately, Al-Jabry discloses forming a similar retractor/reel having a connector (103) comprising a first end attached to the retractor/reel and a clip/clamp attached to/at the opposite end of the connector, which provides additional motivation for and/or evidence of the obviousness of forming the Huang structure in this fashion (i.e. attaching a clip like the Fig. 8 embodiment to the end of the connecting member of the FIG. 1 embodiment).
With Respect to Claim 2
The system of claim 1, wherein said clamp comprises an alligator clamp.
With Respect to Claim 4
The system of claim 1, wherein said clamp is mounted to said back surface of said retractor.
With Respect to Claim 6
The system of claim 1, wherein said clamp is rotably mounted to said retractor (see, e.g. FIGS. 8 and 10, Col. 4 lines 9-13).
With Respect to Claim 7
The system of claim 1, wherein said clamp comprises a suspender clamp (it is a suspender clamp as it is capable of holding/suspending the object held by the retractor and/or as it is shown as being an alligator clip such as are commonly used on suspenders, see also the combination with Hernandez which also discloses a type of clip commonly used on suspenders and/or which is clearly capable of being used to suspend objects as that is the purpose of the Hernandez clip).
With Respect to Claim 8
The system of claim 1, wherein at least one edge surface comprises a plurality of edge surfaces.
With Respect to Claim 9
The system of claim 8, wherein said line extends from a first of said edge surfaces and said clamp extends beyond a second of said edge surfaces, wherein said first edge surface is opposite said second edge surface.
With Respect to Claim 10
The system of claim 1, wherein said clamp is mounted to said housing.
With Respect to Claim 11
A retractor and clamping system, comprising: a retractor (10) having a front and back surface, and at least four edge surface; a clamp (70, FIG. 8 as modified or FIG. 1 as modified) arranged for attaching directly to a user’s piece of clothing, wherein said clamp is integral to said back surface of said retractor (integrally connected via 121) and where said clamp extends beyond a first edge of said four edges with said clamp opening away from said retractor (per obvious modification and/or Hernandez and/or Jabry); a spring (30) internal to said retractor (FIG. 2); a line (41) capable of being extended and retracted from and back into said retractor housing, with said spring urging retraction of said line into said retractor, said line extending from a second edge surface that is opposite to and parallel to said first edge surface (FIG. 8); and a connector (42-43 and 45) on said line for connecting to a personal article.
With Respect to Claim 12
The system of claim 11, wherein said clamp comprises an alligator clamp.
With Respect to Claim 14
The system of claim 11, wherein said clamp is rotably mounted to said retractor (see, e.g. FIGS. 8 and 10, Col. 4 lines 9-13).
With Respect to Claim 15
The system of claim 11, wherein said clamp comprises a suspender clamp (it is a suspender clamp as it is capable of holding/suspending the object held by the retractor and/or as it is shown as being an alligator clip such as are commonly used on suspenders, see also the combination with Hernandez which also discloses a type of clip commonly used on suspenders and/or which is clearly capable of being used to suspend objects as that is the purpose of the Hernandez clip).
With Respect to Claim 16
The system of claim 11, wherein said clamp is mounted to said housing (via 121).
With Respect to Claim 17
The system of claim 11, wherein at least a portion of said clamp is formed integral to said retractor (integrally formed via connection via 121).
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #8,191,815 to Huang (Huang) in view of U.S. Patent #10,813,440 to Hernandez (Hernandez), either alone or further in view of U.S. Patent Publication #2022/0007822 to Al-Jabry (Jabry).
With Respect to Claim 3
The system of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein said clamp comprises a closing locking mechanism.
However, Hernandez discloses forming a similar clamp with a closing locking mechanism (20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to add a closing locking mechanism as taught by Hernandez to the Huang clamp in order to allow for reversibly locking the clamp in the closed position to prevent inadvertent opening. For clarity, this rejection encompasses either using the Hernandez clamp as the clip/clamp (70) of Huang as a mere selection of an art appropriate connection apparatus or at most a mere substitution of one art known fastener for another, or adding some other type of closing locking mechanism to the example clamp shown in Huang.
With Respect to Claim 13
The system of claim 11, wherein said clamp comprises a closing locking mechanism (see the rejection of claim 3 above for details).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J WAGGENSPACK whose telephone number is (571)270-7418. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at (571)272-4544. 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.
/ADAM J WAGGENSPACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734