DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 9th, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“pivoting connector” in Line 3 should read --pivoting connection--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations is/are:
“confining connector unit” in Claim 11 (Lines 2, 4, and 7) and Claim 15 (Lines 2, 4, and 7)
“connector unit” in Claim 12 (Line 2)
“article connecting unit” in Claim 13 (Lines 2 and 4), in Claim 14 (Line 2), and Claim 16 (Line 2)
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “substantially fully surrounded openings” in Lines 16 and 19. The term “substantially” is a relative and/or subjective term that renders the claim indefinite since metes and bounds for the term have not been established. Claims 2, 4-6, 9-11, 13, and 17-18, which depend on Claim 1, are equally rejected. Claim 3, which depends on Claim 2, is equally rejected. Claim 7, which depends on Claim 3, is equally rejected. Claim 8, which depends on Claim 7, is equally rejected. Claim 12, which depends on Claim 11, is equally rejected. Claim 14-15, which depend on Claim 13, are equally rejected. Claim 16, which depends on Claim 15 is equally rejected. Claim 19 and 20, which depend on Claim 18 and 19, respectively, are equally rejected.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein a third of the plurality of connecting parts has a substantially same configuration as the first of the plurality of connecting parts” in Lines 1-3. The term “substantially” is a relative and/or subjective term that renders the claim indefinite since metes and bounds for the term have not been established. Claim 7, which depends on Claim 3, is equally rejected. Claim 8, which depends on Claim 7, is equally rejected.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the other of the first and second substantially fully surrounded openings” in Lines 4-5. There is a plurality of connecting parts, thus it is unclear to what “the other” is referring to rendering the claim indefinite since metes and bounds have not been established. Is it referring to the other of the first and second substantially fully surrounded opening of the same first connecting part or the other fully surrounded opening of another first connecting part? Claim 7, which depends on Claim 3, is equally rejected. Claim 8, which depends on Claim 7, is equally rejected.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “substantially fully surrounded openings” in Lines 4-5. The term “substantially” is a relative and/or subjective term that renders the claim indefinite since metes and bounds for the term have not been established. Claim 7, which depends on Claim 3, is equally rejected. Claim 8, which depends on Claim 7, is equally rejected.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the other of the lengthwise spaced ends” in Lines 4-5. There is a plurality of connecting parts, thus it is unclear to what “the other” is referring to rendering the claim indefinite since metes and bounds have not been established. Is it referring to the other of the lengthwise spaced ends of the same first piece or the other of the lengthwise spaced ends of another first piece?
Claim 10 recites the limitations “substantially flat shape” and substantially oval shape” in Lines 2 and 3, respectively. The term “substantially” is a relative and/or subjective term that renders the claim indefinite since metes and bounds for the term have not been established.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the other of the first and second substantially fully surrounded openings” in Lines 2-3. There is a plurality of connecting parts, thus it is unclear to what “the other” is referring to rendering the claim indefinite since metes and bounds have not been established. Is it referring to the other of the first and second substantially fully surrounded opening of the same first connecting part or the other fully surrounded opening of another first connecting part?
Claim 11 recites the limitation “substantially fully surrounded openings” in Line 3. The term “substantially” is a relative and/or subjective term that renders the claim indefinite since metes and bounds for the term have not been established.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the other of the first and second substantially fully surrounded openings” in Lines 2-3. There is a plurality of connecting parts, thus it is unclear to what “the other” is referring to rendering the claim indefinite since metes and bounds have not been established. Is it referring to the other of the first and second substantially fully surrounded opening of the same first connecting part or the other fully surrounded opening of another first connecting part? Claim 14-15, which depend on Claim 13, are equally rejected. Claim 16, which depends on Claim 15, is equally rejected.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “substantially fully surrounded openings” in Line 3. The term “substantially” is a relative and/or subjective term that renders the claim indefinite since metes and bounds for the term have not been established. Claim 14-15, which depend on Claim 13, are equally rejected. Claim 16, which depends on Claim 15, is equally rejected.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the other of the first and second substantially fully surrounded openings” in Lines 2-3. There is a plurality of connecting parts, thus it is unclear to what “the other” is referring to rendering the claim indefinite since metes and bounds have not been established. Is it referring to the other of the first and second substantially fully surrounded opening of the same first connecting part or the other fully surrounded opening of another first connecting part? Claim 16, which depends on Claim 15, is equally rejected.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “substantially fully surrounded openings” in Line 3. The term “substantially” is a relative and/or subjective term that renders the claim indefinite since metes and bounds for the term have not been established. Claim 16, which depends on Claim 15, is equally 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.
Claims 1-7, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Clark (US1456361A), hereinafter "Clark".
Regarding Claim 1, Clark discloses an elongate flexible security apparatus (Fig. 2) comprising: a plurality of relatively movable connecting parts (Fig. 2, Elements 1 and 8) that are joined to produce a combined length for the elongate flexible security apparatus (Fig 2; Lines 21-46), a first (see 1st annotated Fig. 2 of Clark reproduced below) of the plurality of connecting parts (Fig. 2, Elements 1 and 8) comprising: a) a first piece (Figs, 1-2, Element 1) having a body (see 1st annotated Fig. 1 of Clark reproduced below) with first (see 1st annotated Fig. 1 of Clark reproduced below; Lines 21-35) and second receptacles (see 1st annotated Fig. 1 of Clark reproduced below; Lines 21-35) respectively with first (see 1st annotated Fig. 1 of Clark reproduced below; Lines 21-35) and second entryways (see annotated Fig. 1 of Clark reproduced below; Lines 21-35); and b) a second piece (Figs, 1-2, Element 1; Lines 21-35) having a second body (see 1st annotated Fig. 1 of Clark reproduced below) with third (see 1st annotated Fig. 1 of Clark reproduced below; Lines 21-35) and fourth receptacles (see 1st annotated Fig. 1 of Clark reproduced below; Lines 21-35) respectively with third (see 1st annotated Fig. 1 of Clark reproduced below; Lines 21-35) and fourth entryways (see 1st annotated Fig. 1 of Clark reproduced below; Lines 21-35), the first piece (Figs, 1-2, Element 1; Lines 21-35) and second piece (Figs, 1-2, Element 1; Lines 21-35) configured to be moved between: a) a starting relationship wherein paths exist from locations spaced from the first body (see 1st annotated Fig. 1 of Clark reproduced below): i) through the first entryway (see 1st annotated Fig. 1 of Clark reproduced below; Lines 21-35) into the first receptacle (see1st annotated Fig. 1 of Clark reproduced below; Lines 21-35) and through the second entryway (see 1st annotated Fig. 1 of Clark reproduced below; Lines 21-35) into the second receptacle (see 1st annotated Fig. 1 of Clark reproduced below; Lines 21-35); and from locations spaced from the second body (see 1st annotated Fig. 1 of Clark reproduced below) ii) through the third entryway (see 1st annotated Fig. 1 of Clark reproduced below; Lines 21-35) into the third receptacle (see 1st annotated Fig. 1 of Clark reproduced below; Lines 21-35) and through the fourth entryway (see 1st annotated Fig. 1 of Clark reproduced below; Lines 21-35) into the fourth receptacle (see 1st annotated Fig. 1 of Clark reproduced below; Lines 21-35) and; b) an operative relationship wherein the first (Fig. 2; see 1st annotated Fig. 1 of Clark reproduced below; Lines 21-35) and second pieces (Fig. 2; see 1st annotated Fig. 1 of Clark reproduced below; Lines 21-35) cooperate to: A) block each of the paths (Fig. 2; see 1st annotated Fig. 1 of Clark reproduced below; Lines 21-35) through the first, second, third, and fourth entryways (Fig. 2; see 1st annotated Fig. 1 of Clark reproduced below; Lines 21-35) successively into (Fig. 2; see 1st annotated Fig. 1 of Clark reproduced below; Lines 21-35) the first, second, third, and fourth receptacles (Fig. 2; see 1st annotated Fig. 1 of Clark reproduced below; Lines 21-35); B) define spaced first (see 1st annotated Fig. 2 of Clark reproduced below) and second (see 1st annotated Fig. 2 of Clark reproduced below) substantially fully surrounded openings (see 1st annotated Fig. 2 of Clark reproduced below) respectively defined by: a) at least part of the first and fourth receptacles (see 1st annotated Figs. 1-2 of Clark reproduced below); and b) at least part of the second and third receptacles (see 1st annotated Figs. 1- 2 of Clark reproduced below), a second (see annotated Fig. 2 of Clark reproduced below) of the plurality of connecting parts (Fig. 2, Elements 1 and 8) having a portion (see 1st annotated Fig. 2 of Clark reproduced below) extendable through one (see 1st annotated Fig. 2 of Clark reproduced below) of the first and second substantially fully surrounded openings (see 1st annotated Fig. 2 of Clark reproduced below) and configured to define a pivoting connection (see 1st annotated Fig. 2 of Clark reproduced below) between the first (see 1st annotated Fig. 2 of Clark reproduced below) of the plurality of connecting parts (Fig. 2, Elements 1 and 8) and the second (see 1st annotated Fig. 2 of Clark reproduced below) of the plurality of connecting parts (Fig. 2, Elements 1 and 8).
PNG
media_image1.png
367
602
media_image1.png
Greyscale
1st annotated Fig. 2 of Clark
PNG
media_image2.png
275
471
media_image2.png
Greyscale
1st annotated Fig. 2 of Clark
Regarding Claim 2, Clark anticipates the elongate flexible security apparatus as claimed in Claim 1 as explained above.
Clark further discloses wherein the second (see 1st annotated Fig. 2 of Clark reproduced above) of the plurality of connecting parts (Fig. 2, Elements 1 and 8) has a same configuration as the first (see 1st annotated Fig. 2 of Clark reproduced above) of the plurality of connecting parts (Fig. 2, Elements 1 and 8; Lines 42-46).
Regarding Claim 3, Clark anticipates the elongate flexible security apparatus as claimed in Claim 2 as explained above.
Clark further discloses wherein a third (see 1st annotated Fig. 2 of Clark reproduced above) of the plurality of connecting parts (Fig. 2, Elements 1 and 8) has a substantially same configuration as the first (see 1st annotated Fig. 2 of Clark reproduced above) of the plurality of connecting parts (Fig. 2, Elements 1 and 8; Lines 42-46) and a portion of the third (see 1st annotated Fig. 2 of Clark reproduced above) of the plurality of connecting parts (Fig. 2, Elements 1 and 8) is extendable through the other (see 1st annotated Fig. 2 of Clark reproduced above) of the first and second substantially fully surrounded openings (see 1st annotated Fig. 2 of Clark reproduced above) and is configured to define a pivoting connection (see 1st annotated Fig. 2 of Clark reproduced above) between the first (see 1st annotated Fig. 2 of Clark reproduced above) of the plurality of connecting parts (Fig. 2, Elements 1 and 8) and the third (see 1st annotated Fig. 2 of Clark reproduced above) of the plurality of connecting parts (Fig. 2, Elements 1 and 8).
Regarding Claim 4, Clark anticipates the elongate flexible security apparatus as claimed in Claim 1 as explained above.
Clark further discloses wherein the first piece (Figs, 1-2, Element 1; Lines 21-35) and the second piece (Figs, 1-2, Element 1; Lines 21-35) have a same configuration (Figs, 1-2, Element 1; Lines 21-35) with the first receptacle (see 1st annotated Fig. 1 of Clark reproduced above; Fig. 2) corresponding to the third receptacle (see 1st annotated Fig. 1 of Clark reproduced above; Fig. 2) and the second receptacle (see 1st annotated Fig. 1 of Clark reproduced above; Fig. 2) corresponding to the fourth receptacle(see 1st annotated Fig. 1 of Clark reproduced above; Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 5, Clark anticipates the elongate flexible security apparatus as claimed in Claim 1 as explained above.
Clark further discloses wherein the first body (see 2nd annotated Fig. 1 of Clark reproduced below) on the first piece (Figs, 1-2, Element 1; Lines 21-35) has an elongate shape (see 2nd annotated Fig. 1 of Clark reproduced below) with a middle location (see 2nd annotated Fig. 1 of Clark reproduced below) midway between lengthwise spaced ends (see 2nd annotated Fig. 1 of Clark reproduced below), and the first receptacle (see 1st annotated Fig. 1 of Clark reproduced above) is closer to one of the lengthwise spaced ends (see 2nd annotated Fig. 1 of Clark reproduced below) than to the middle location (see 2nd annotated Fig. 1 of Clark reproduced below) and the second receptacle (see 1st annotated Fig. 1 of Clark reproduced above) is closer to the other of the lengthwise spaced ends (see 2nd annotated Fig. 1 of Clark reproduced below) than to the middle location (see 2nd annotated Fig. 1 of Clark reproduced below).
PNG
media_image3.png
309
520
media_image3.png
Greyscale
2nd annotated Fig. 1 of Clark
Regarding Claim 6, Clark anticipates the elongate flexible security apparatus as claimed in Claim 1 as explained above.
Clark further discloses wherein the body (see 1st annotated Fig. 1 of Clark reproduced above) on the first piece (Figs, 1-2, Element 1; Lines 21-35) is in a form of a flat sheet (see 1st annotated Fig. 1 of Clark reproduced above).
Regarding Claim 7, Clark anticipates the elongate flexible security apparatus as claimed in Claim 3 as explained above.
Clark further discloses wherein the first (Figs, 1-2, Element 1; Lines 21-35) and second pieces (Figs, 1-2, Element 1; Lines 21-35) in the operative relationship (Fig. 2) are fixed together (Lines 21-46).
Regarding Claim 10, Clark anticipates the elongate flexible security apparatus as claimed in Claim 1 as explained above.
Clark further discloses wherein each of the first (Figs, 1-2, Element 1; Lines 21-35) and second pieces (Figs, 1-2, Element 1; Lines 21-35) has a substantially flat shape (see 2nd annotated Fig. 1 of Clark reproduced above) parallel to a reference plane (see 2nd annotated Fig. 1 of Clark reproduced above) and a substantially oval shape (see 2nd annotated Fig. 1 of Clark reproduced above) as viewed from a perspective (see 2nd annotated Fig. 1 of Clark reproduced above) orthogonally to the reference plane (see 2nd annotated Fig. 1 of Clark reproduced above).
Regarding Claim 13, Clark anticipates the elongate flexible security apparatus as claimed in Claim 1 as explained above.
Clark further discloses the elongate flexible security apparatus (Fig. 2) further comprising an article connecting unit (see 2nd annotated Fig. 2 of Clark reproduced below) with a portion (see 2nd annotated Fig. 2 of Clark reproduced below) extendable through (see 2nd annotated Fig. 2 of Clark reproduced below) the other (see 2nd annotated Fig. 2 of Clark reproduced below) of the substantially fully surrounded openings (see 2nd annotated Fig. 2 of Clark reproduced below) and configured to define a pivoting connection (see 2nd annotated Fig. 2 of Clark reproduced below) between the article connector unit (see 2nd annotated Fig. 2 of Clark reproduced below) and the first (see 2nd annotated Fig. 2 of Clark reproduced below) of the plurality of connecting parts (Fig. 2, Elements 1 and 8).
PNG
media_image4.png
367
601
media_image4.png
Greyscale
2nd annotated Fig. 2 of Clark
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark in view of Vito (US6895738B2), hereinafter "Vito".
Regarding Claim 8, Clark anticipates the elongate flexible security apparatus as claimed in Claim 7 as explained above.
Clark fails to disclose wherein the first and second pieces in the operative relationship are welded together.
Nonetheless, Vito teaches wherein the first (Figs. 1 and 4, Element 214) and second pieces (Figs. 1 and 4, Element 214) in the operative relationship (Figs. 1 and 4) are welded together (Column 1, Lines 28-31; Column 3, Lines 23-31).
Clark and Vito are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of security apparatus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Vito of using welding to fixed the first and second pieces disclosed by Clark in the operative relationship to provide a high strength elongate flexible security apparatus suitable for anti-theft applications (Column 1, Lines 28-31).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark in view of Ingalls (US0167453A), hereinafter "Ingalls".
Regarding Claim 9, Clark anticipates the elongate flexible security apparatus as claimed in Claim 1 as explained above.
Clark is silent on wherein the first and second pieces are made from a metal material.
Nonetheless, Ingalls teaches wherein the first (Figs. 1-3, Element B) and second pieces (Figs. 1-3, Element B') are made from a metal material (Page 1, Lines 40-45).
Clark and Ingalls are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of security apparatus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Ingalls of using first and second pieces made from a metal material into the elongate flexible security apparatus disclosed by Clark to ensure the proper strength of the elongate flexible security apparatus (Page 1, Lines 40-45).
Claim 11-12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark in view of Derman (US20130086955A1), hereinafter "Derman".
Regarding Claim 11, Clark anticipates the elongate flexible security apparatus as claimed in Claim 1 as explained above.
Clark further discloses the elongate flexible security apparatus (Fig. 2) further comprising: a confining connector unit (see 3rd annotated Fig. 2 of Clark reproduced below) having a portion (see 3rd annotated Fig. 2 of Clark reproduced below) extendable through the other (see 3rd annotated Fig. 2 of Clark reproduced below) of the substantially fully surrounded openings (see 3rd annotated Fig. 2 of Clark reproduced below) and configured to define a pivoting connector (see 3rd annotated Fig. 2 of Clark reproduced below) between the confining connector unit (see 3rd annotated Fig. 2 of Clark reproduced below) and the first (see 3rd annotated Fig. 2 of Clark reproduced below) of the plurality of connecting parts (Fig. 2, Elements 1 and 8).
Clark fails to disclose wherein the flexible security apparatus is provided in combination with an anchoring base and the flexible security apparatus is connected to the anchoring base through the confining connector unit.
Nonetheless, Derman teaches wherein a flexible security apparatus (Fig. 1, Element 24) is provided in combination with an anchoring base (Fig. 1, Element 14) and the flexible security apparatus (Fig. 1, Element 24) is connected to the anchoring base (Fig. 1, Element 14) through a confining connector unit (see annotated Fig. 1 of Derman reproduced below).
Clark and Derman are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of security apparatus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Derman and use the flexible security apparatus disclosed by Clark in combination with an anchoring base and connecting the flexible security apparatus to the anchoring base through the confining connector unit to protect an item from theft or unwanted removal (¶0024).
PNG
media_image5.png
367
601
media_image5.png
Greyscale
3rd annotated Fig. 2 of Clark
PNG
media_image6.png
527
564
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Derman
Regarding Claim 12, the prior art combination of Clark and Derman renders the elongate flexible security apparatus of Claim 11 unpatentable as explained above.
After modifications, the prior art combination of Clark and Derman further teaches wherein the connector unit (see 3rd annotated Fig. 2 of Clark reproduced above) is configured to be releasably connected (Clark - Lines 36-46) to the anchoring base (Derman - Fig. 1, Element 14).
Regarding Claim 14, Clark anticipates the elongate flexible security apparatus as claimed in Claim 13 as explained above.
Clark fails to disclosed the elongate flexible security apparatus in combination with a portable article operably engaged with the article connecting unit.
Nonetheless, Derman teaches a flexible security apparatus (Fig. 1, Element 24) in combination with a portable article (Fig. 1, Element 12; ¶0024) operably engaged (Fig. 1, Element 12; ¶0024; by means of Element 22) with the article connecting unit (see annotated Fig. 1 of Derman reproduced above).
Clark and Derman are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of security apparatus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Derman and use the flexible security apparatus disclosed by Clark in combination with a portable article operably engaged with the article connecting unit to protect an item from theft or unwanted removal (¶0024).
Regarding Claim 15, Clark anticipates the elongate flexible security apparatus as claimed in Claim 13 as explained above.
Clark fails to disclose further comprising a confining connector unit having a portion extendable through the other of the substantially fully surrounded openings and configured to define a pivoting connector between the confining connector unit and the first of the plurality of connecting parts, wherein the flexible security apparatus is provided in combination with an anchoring base and the flexible security apparatus is connected to the anchoring base through the confining connector unit.
Nonetheless, Derman teaches an elongate flexible security apparatus (Fig. 1, Element 24) that comprises a plurality of first connecting parts (see annotated Fig. 1 of Derman reproduced above) and a confining connector unit (see annotated Fig. 1 of Derman reproduced below) configured to define a pivoting connector (Fig. 1) between the confining connector unit (see annotated Fig. 1 of Derman reproduced below) and the first of the plurality of connecting parts), wherein the flexible security apparatus (Fig. 1, Element 24) is provided in combination an anchoring base (Fig. 1, Element 14) the flexible security apparatus ( Fig. 1, Element 24) is connected to the anchoring base (Fig. 1, Element 14) through the confining connector unit (see annotated Fig. 1 of Derman reproduced below).
Clark and Derman are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of security apparatus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Derman of using a plurality of first connecting parts wherein one of the first connecting parts and a confining connector unit configured to define a pivoting connector between the confining connector unit and one of the plurality of the first connecting parts, wherein the flexible security apparatus is provided in combination with an anchoring base and the flexible security apparatus is connected to the anchoring base through the confining connector unit into the elongate flexible security apparatus disclosed by Clark to protect an item from theft or unwanted removal (¶0024).
After modifications, the prior art combination of Clark and Derman teaches the confining connector unit (see annotated Fig. 1 of Derman; Clark - Fig. 2, Element 8; Lines 42-46) having a portion extendable through the other of the substantially fully surrounded openings (see 4th annotated Fig. 2 of Clark reproduced below).
PNG
media_image7.png
367
530
media_image7.png
Greyscale
4th annotated Fig. 2 of Clark
Regarding Claim 16, the prior art combination of Clark and Derman renders the elongate flexible security apparatus as claimed in Claim 15 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Clark and Derman further teaches the elongate flexible apparatus (Clark – Fig. 2; Derman – Fig. 1, Element 24) in combination with a portable article (Derman – Fig. 1, Element 12; ¶0024) operatively engaged (Derman – Fig. 1, Element 12; ¶0024; by means of Element 22) with the article connecting unit (see annotated Fig. 1 of Derman reproduced above), whereby the portable article (Derman – Fig. 1, Element 12; ¶0024) is confined in movement relative to the anchoring base (Derman – Fig. 1, Element 14) within a range dictated by a length of the elongate flexible security apparatus (Clark – Fig. 2; Derman – Fig. 1, Element 24).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark in view of Wu et al. (US20140069153A1), hereinafter "Wu".
Regarding Claim 17, Clark anticipates the elongate flexible security apparatus as claimed in Claim 1 as explained above.
Clark fails to disclose the elongate flexible security apparatus in combination with a portable article and a portion of the elongate flexible security apparatus is directed through a part of the portable article to operatively engage the portable article.
Nonetheless, Wu teaches an elongate flexible security apparatus (Fig. 15, Element 700; ¶0035) in combination with a portable article (Fig. 15, Element 900) and a portion (Fig. 15, Element 10) of the elongate flexible security apparatus (Fig. 15, Element 700; ¶0035) is directed through a part of the portable article (Fig. 15, Element 900; ¶0035) to operatively engage the portable article (Fig. 15, Element 900; ¶0035).
Clark and Wu are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of security apparatus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Wu and use the elongate flexible security apparatus disclosed by Clark in combination with a portable article and have a portion of the elongate flexible security apparatus directed through a part of the portable article to operatively engage the portable article to tie to tie the portable article and prevent it from being stolen (¶0035).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Clark.
Regarding Claim 18, Wu discloses a method (¶0035) of securing a portable article (Fig. 15, Element 900), the method (¶0035) comprising the steps of: obtaining an elongate flexible security apparatus (Fig. 15, Element 700; ¶0035); connecting the elongate flexible security apparatus (Fig. 15, Element 700; ¶0035) to an anchoring base (see annotated Fig. 15 of Wu reproduced below) ; and operatively engaging the portable article (Fig. 15, Element 900) with the elongate flexible security apparatus (Fig. 15, Element 700; ¶0035), whereby the portable article (Fig. 15, Element 900) is confined in movement relative (¶0035) to the anchoring base (see annotated Fig. 15 of Wu reproduced below) within a range dictated by a length of the elongate flexible security apparatus (Fig. 15, Element 700; ¶0035).
Wu fails to disclose obtaining the elongate flexible security apparatus of claim 1.
Nonetheless, Clark teaches the elongate flexible security apparatus of claim 1 as explained above.
Wu and Clark are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of security apparatus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate teachings of Clark into the method disclosed by Wu and substitute obtaining the elongate flexible security apparatus of Wu with obtaining the elongate flexible security apparatus of Clark to provide a simple but effective means whereby the connecting parts of the elongate flexible security apparatus may be held together securely but releasably (Lines 8-11).
PNG
media_image8.png
573
540
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 15 of Wu
Regarding Claim 19, the prior art combination of Wu and Clark renders the method of securing a portable article as claimed in Claim 18 unpatentable as explained above.
Wu further discloses wherein the step of operatively engaging the portable article (Fig. 15, Element 900) with the elongate flexible security apparatus (Fig. 15, Element 700; ¶0035) comprises directing a portion (Fig. 15, Element 10) of the elongate flexible security apparatus (Fig. 15, Element 700; ¶0035) through a part of the portable article (Fig. 15, Element 900; ¶0035).
Regarding Claim 20, the prior art combination of Wu and Clark renders the method of securing a portable article as claimed in Claim 19 unpatentable as explained above.
Wu further discloses wherein the portable article (Fig. 15, Element 900) is a portable electronic device (¶0035).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALONDRA MICHELLE ORTIZ-ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9539. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-5PM ET.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. 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.
/A.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights