DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 9 be found allowable, claim 16 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. Similarly, should claim 13 be found allowable, claim 19 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. Further, should claim 15 be found allowable, claim 20 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Note, these objections were raised in the Office Action mailed 07/01/2025.
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.
Claims 1-7, 11-14, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2021/0170985 to Anderson (“Anderson”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2010/0326371 to Lopusnak et al. (“Lopusnak”).
Regarding claim 1, Anderson teaches a crash-tested single point restraining device for harnessing a pet within a vehicle having a conventional seat belt receiver, comprising: a housing (100) having a tensioning and retracting mechanism which is mechanically coupled to a reel assembly secured within the housing, a slotted opening on a front side of said housing and a rear side; b. a seat belt insert member (106) secured to said rear side of said housing, said seat belt insert member adapted to be removably connected to the seat belt receiver; c. an extendable retractable seat belt webbing (102) having a proximal end anchored within said housing through said slotted opening, and a distal end having a harness connecting member secured thereto (FIG. 3); d. a stitched area formed near said distal end of said retractable seat belt webbing, said stitched area being formed by looping a length of said retractable seat belt webbing about a looping bar and collar adaptor and sewing the looped end upon itself (FIG. 3), wherein said tensioning and retracting mechanism is configured to lock said reel assembly to a predetermined extended length of said retractable seat belt webbing and to automatically lock said reel assembly in response to a vehicle deceleration trigger (¶¶ [0036], [0040]).
Anderson does not explicitly teach a retraction limiting component integrated within said retractable seat belt webbing, said retraction limiting component configured to prevent said stitched area from passing through said slotted opening.
Lopusnak teaches a restraining device, including a retraction limiting component (23) integrated within said retractable seat belt webbing, said retraction limiting component configured to prevent said stitched area from passing through said slotted opening (FIG. 1; ¶ [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the restraining device of Anderson and further include the retraction limiting component, as taught by Lopusnak, in order to prevent the anchoring point connector (clasp) from entering the housing (see, e.g., Lopusnak at ¶ [0023]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Anderson and Lopusnak teaches each and every element of claim 1, as discussed above, and it further teaches wherein said retraction limiting component is disposed on said retractable seat belt webbing proximate to said stitched area (Anderson at FIGS. 1-3, Lopusnak at FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Anderson and Lopusnak teaches each and every element of claim 2, as discussed above, and it further teaches wherein said retraction limiting component has a dimension exceeding the size of said slotted opening and less than that of the width of said retractable seat belt webbing (Lopusnak at FIGS. 3-4, showing that the height of the retraction limiting component exceeds the size of the slotted opening and is less than the width of webbing), such that said stitched area cannot be retracted into said housing (Anderson at FIGS. 1-3, Lopusnak at FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Anderson and Lopusnak teaches each and every element of claim 3, as discussed above, and it further teaches wherein said retraction limiting component has a raised button shape disposed on said retractable seat belt webbing (Lopusnak at FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Anderson and Lopusnak teaches each and every element of claim 3, as discussed above, and it teaches that the retraction limiting component has a raised shape disposed on said retractable seat belt webbing (Lopusnak at FIG. 1), but it does not explicitly teach wherein said retraction limiting component has an elongated rectangular shape.
It is well settled, however, that merely changing the size or configuration of a prior art device is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular size or configuration was significant (MPEP 2144, citing In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of the Anderson and Lopusnak combination and make the retraction limiting component an elongated rectangular shape, in order to better ensure it prevents the components from entering the housing.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Anderson and Lopusnak teaches each and every element of claim 1, as discussed above, and it further teaches an anchor point connector secured to said rear side of said housing, said anchor point connector adapted to be removably secured to a vehicle anchor point located within a vehicle (Anderson at top of FIGS. 1-4).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Anderson and Lopusnak teaches each and every element of claim 6, as discussed above, and it further teaches wherein said anchor point connector is adapted to be removably connected to lower anchor points and to tether anchor points located within the interior of a vehicle (Anderson at FIGS. 1-4).
Regarding claim 11, Anderson teaches a crash-tested single point restraining device for harnessing a pet within a vehicle having at least one interior vehicle anchor point, comprising: a. a housing (100) having a tensioning and retracting mechanism which is mechanically coupled to a reel assembly secured within the housing, a slotted opening on a front side of said housing and a rear side; b. an anchor point connector (106) secured to said rear side of said housing, said anchor point connector adapted to be removably secured to said at least one interior vehicle anchor point; c. an extendable retractable seat belt webbing (102) having a proximal end anchored within said housing through said slotted opening, and a distal end having a harness connecting member secured thereto; d. a stitched area formed near said distal end of said retractable seat belt webbing, said stitched area being formed by looping a length of said retractable seat belt webbing about a looping bar and collar adaptor and sewing the looped end upon itself (FIG. 3), wherein said tensioning and retracting mechanism is configured to lock said reel assembly to a predetermined extended length of said retractable seat belt webbing and to automatically lock said reel assembly in response to a vehicle deceleration trigger (¶¶ [0036], [0040]).
Anderson does not explicitly teach a retraction limiting component integrated with said retractable seat belt webbing, said retraction limiting component configured to prevent said stitched area from passing through said slotted opening.
Lopusnak teaches a restraining device, including a retraction limiting component (23) integrated on said retractable seat belt webbing, said retraction limiting component configured to prevent said stitched area from passing through said slotted opening (FIG. 1; ¶ [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the restraining device of Anderson and further include the retraction limiting component, as taught by Lopusnak, in order to prevent the anchoring point connector (clasp) from entering the housing (see, e.g., Lopusnak at ¶ [0023]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Anderson and Lopusnak teaches each and every element of claim 11, as discussed above, and it further teaches wherein said retraction limiting component is disposed on said retractable seat belt webbing proximate to said stitched area (Anderson at FIGS. 1-3, Lopusnak at FIG. 1).
Regarding claims 13 and 19, the combination of Anderson and Lopusnak teaches each and every element of claim 12, as discussed above, and it further teaches wherein said retraction limiting component has a dimension exceeding the size of said slotted opening and less than that of the width of said retractable seat belt webbing (Lopusnak at FIGS. 3-4, showing that the height of the retraction limiting component exceeds the size of the slotted opening and is less than the width of webbing) such that said stitched area cannot be retracted into said housing (Anderson at FIGS. 1-3, Lopusnak at FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Anderson and Lopusnak teaches each and every element of claim 11, as discussed above, and it further teaches wherein said at least one interior vehicle anchor point is selected from the group consisting of lower anchor points and tether anchor points (Anderson at FIGS. 1-4).
Regarding claim 17, Anderson teaches a crash-tested single point restraining device for harnessing a pet within a vehicle having at least one vehicle interior anchor point, comprising: a. a housing (100) having a tensioning and retracting mechanism which is mechanically coupled to a reel assembly secured within the housing, a slotted opening on a front side of said housing and a rear side; b. an extendable retractable seat belt webbing (102) having a proximal end anchored within said housing through said slotted opening, and a distal end having a harness connecting member secured thereto; c. a stitched area formed near said distal end of said retractable seat belt webbing, said stitched area being formed by looping a length of said retractable seat belt webbing about a looping bar and collar adaptor and sewing the looped end upon itself (FIG. 3), wherein said rear side of said housing is permanently affixed to said at least one vehicle interior anchor point (FIGS. 1-4), wherein said tensioning and retracting mechanism is configured to lock said reel assembly to a predetermined extended length of said retractable seat belt webbing and to automatically lock said reel assembly in response to a vehicle deceleration trigger (¶¶ [0036], [0040]).
Anderson does not explicitly teach a retraction limiting component integrated on said retractable seat belt webbing, said retraction limiting component configured to prevent said stitched area from passing through said slotted opening.
Lopusnak teaches a restraining device, including a retraction limiting component (23) integrated on said retractable seat belt webbing, said retraction limiting component configured to prevent said stitched area from passing through said slotted opening (FIG. 1; ¶ [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the restraining device of Anderson and further include the retraction limiting component, as taught by Lopusnak, in order to prevent the anchoring point connector (clasp) from entering the housing (see, e.g., Lopusnak at ¶ [0023]).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Anderson and Lopusnak teaches each and every element of claim 17, as discussed above, and it further teaches wherein said retraction limiting component is disposed on said retractable seat belt webbing proximate to said stitched area (Anderson at FIGS. 1-3, Lopusnak at FIG. 1).
Claims 8-9, 15, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Lopusnak as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,377,626 to Kilsby et al. (“Kilsby”).
Regarding claims 8, the combination of Anderson and Lopusnak teaches each and every element of claim 1, as discussed above, and it further teaches that an anti-twist component capable of preventing said retractable seat belt webbing from twisting upon itself while it is being extended from or retracted into said slotted opening of said housing (Anderson at FIGS. 1-4, teaching the opening is oblong, and therefore is capable of preventing said retractable seat belt webbing from twisting upon itself while it is being extended from or retracted into said slotted opening of said housing (see, Kilsby at Col. 11, lines 64-68 and FIG. 1, showing that an elongated opening functions to prevent a retractable seat belt webbing from twisting upon itself while it is being extended from or retracted into a slotted opening of a housing).
In case it is argued that the combination of Anderson and Lopusnak does not explicitly teach the anti-twist component, then Kilsby teaches an anti-twist component capable of preventing said retractable seat belt webbing from twisting upon itself while it is being extended from or retracted into said slotted opening of said housing (Col. 11, lines 64-68 and FIG. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of the Anderson and Lopusnak combination to further include the anti-twist component, as taught by Kilsby, in order to prevent twisting as well as the carrying in of debris (see Kilsby at Col. 11, lines 64-68).
The combination of Anderson, Lopusnak, and Kilsby does not explicitly teach an anti-twist component that is a metal bar disposed within the slotted opening and reducing the vertical height of the slotted opening. Rather, the combination teaches the anti-twist component to be a very narrow oblong slot such that the belt cannot twist or hold over itself (Kilsby at Col. 11, lines 64-68 and FIG. 1).
It is well settled, however, that forming in two pieces a component that had formerly been in one piece involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04, citing In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). Applicant has not shown any patentable significance in providing a bar within the slotted opening, as opposed to providing a smaller slotted opening. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of the Anderson, Lopusnak, and Kilsby combination so that the anti-twist component includes a bar and a slot, rather than a narrower slot, in order to facilitate manufacturing.
Regarding claims 9 and 16, the combination of Anderson, Lopusnak, and Kilsby teaches each and every combination of claim 8, as discussed above, and it teaches that the anti-twist bar is in the form of a bar horizontally spanning said slotted opening (see above analysis of claim 8), but it does not explicitly teach that the bar is metal. However, a selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular material was significant. MPEP at 2144.07, citing Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Applicant has not shown any patentable significance in making the bar out of metal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of the Anderson, Lopusnak, and Kilsby combination so that bar is made out of metal, in order to optimize durability.
Regarding claims 15 and 20, the combination of Anderson and Lopusnak teaches each and every element of claim 11, as discussed above, and it further teaches that an anti-twist component capable of preventing said retractable seat belt webbing from twisting upon itself while it is being extended from or retracted into said slotted opening of said housing (Anderson at FIGS. 1-4, teaching the opening is oblong, and therefore is capable of preventing said retractable seat belt webbing from twisting upon itself while it is being extended from or retracted into said slotted opening of said housing (see, Kilsby at Col. 11, lines 64-68 and FIG. 1, showing that an elongated opening functions to prevent a retractable seat belt webbing from twisting upon itself while it is being extended from or retracted into a slotted opening of a housing).
In case it is argued that the combination of Anderson and Lopusnak does not explicitly teach the anti-twist component, then Kilsby teaches an anti-twist component capable of preventing said retractable seat belt webbing from twisting upon itself while it is being extended from or retracted into said slotted opening of said housing (Col. 11, lines 64-68 and FIG. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of the Anderson and Lopusnak combination to further include the anti-twist component, as taught by Kilsby, in order to prevent twisting as well as the carrying in of debris (see Kilsby at Col. 11, lines 64-68).
The combination of Anderson, Lopusnak, and Kilsby does not explicitly teach an anti-twist component that is a metal bar disposed within the slotted opening and reducing the vertical height of the slotted opening. Rather, the combination teaches the anti-twist component to be a very narrow oblong slot such that the belt cannot twist or hold over itself (Kilsby at Col. 11, lines 64-68 and FIG. 1).
It is well settled, however, that forming in two pieces a component that had formerly been in one piece involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04, citing In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). Applicant has not shown any patentable significance in providing a bar within the slotted opening, as opposed to providing a smaller slotted opening. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of the Anderson, Lopusnak, and Kilsby combination so that the anti-twist component includes a bar and a slot, rather than a narrower slot, in order to facilitate manufacturing.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Lopusnak as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,827,044 to Lobanoff et al. (“Lobanoff”).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Anderson and Lopusnak teaches each and every element of claim 1, as discussed above, but it does not explicitly teach a tear-away stitching integrated with said retractable seat belt webbing, said tear-away stitching designed to tear partially in order to lengthen the retractable seat belt webbing, said tear-away stitching having a predetermined tear force.
Lobanoff teaches a restraining device, including a tear-away stitching integrated with said retractable seat belt webbing, said tear-away stitching designed to tear partially in order to lengthen the retractable seat belt webbing, said tear-away stitching having a predetermined tear force (Col. 7, lines 20-38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of the Anderson and Lopusnak combination by further including the tear-away stitching, as taught by Lobanoff, in order to improve safety to the animal.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or are moot in light of the new grounds for rejection.
Applicant has not shown that the term “vehicle anchor point” does not read on a conventional human seat belt receiver.
Applicant has not shown that the safety device of the Anderson and Lopusnak combination cannot be a crash-tested device.
Anderson clearly teaches that the tensioning and retracting mechanism is configured to lock said reel assembly to a predetermined extended length of said retractable seat belt webbing and to automatically lock said reel assembly in response to a vehicle deceleration trigger (¶¶ [0036], [0040]).
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 MARISA CONLON whose telephone number is (571)272-4387. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00.
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, PETER POON can be reached at (571)272-6891. 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.
/MARISA V CONLON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643