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 filed 1/31/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Examiner notes that Applicant has not provided any of the foreign references or non-patent literature publications listed on the IDS in the application. As such, these references have not been considered. However, the U.S patents and patent application publications listed on the IDS have been considered.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is presently more than 150 words in length and uses phrases such as “The present invention is” and “the handling device of the present invention”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Table 1 – “Grove Radius J” should be “Groove Radius J”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 23 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 “a strap having a first section and a second section” and “a pin side buckle coupled to a first end of the first section of the strap… a socket side buckle coupled to a first end of the second section of strap” which is indefinite because it is unclear what Applicant is referring to with a first section and a second section. These terms are not present in the specification, so it is unclear to Examiner how to interpret this limitation. As best understood by Examiner, and for purposes of examination, the first section of the strap is element(s) 34 and the second section of the strap is element 38. For clarity, Examiner recommends amending the specification to specify which elements are considered the first section and second section of the strap, respectively. Similar issues exist in independent claim 23. Dependent claims are likewise rejected.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the socket side buckle further comprises a second buckle pin and the pin side buckle further comprises a second buckle opening” which is indefinite because a first buckle pin and first buckle opening have not been disclosed in this dependency chain. Examiner notes that claim 6 introduces a first buckle pin and first buckle opening, but claim 7 is not dependent on claim 6.
Claim 9 recites “herein the pin side buckle further comprises a first substrate having a first strap opening” which is indefinite because it is unclear what is considered the first substrate. Applicant’s disclosure recites a plastic substrate (40) which can be seen in Fig. 3B and 4B, for example. However, this substrate does not have a first strap opening, so it is Examiner’s belief that this is not the same substrate that is being recited in the claims. Is Applicant intending to recite one of the slots (32A-C) that define strap openings? For purposes of examination, and to promote compact prosecution, Examiner is interpreting the substrate of claim 9 to be the slots (32A-C) shown in Fig. 3B and 4B. Similar issues exist for the second substrate recited in claim 10.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the socket side buckle further comprises a second substrate having a second strap opening and wherein a portion of the second section of the strap is positioned in the second strap opening” which is indefinite because a substrate having a first strap opening has not been disclosed in this dependency chain. Examiner notes that claim 9 introduces a first substrate having a first strap opening, but claim 10 is not dependent on claim 9.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 24-26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Balsells et al. (US 20100029145 A1), hereinafter Balsells.
Regarding Claim 24
Balsells teaches a safety release device (Abstract) comprising: a pin having an outer pin diameter (outer diameter of first member (101) shown in Fig. 1, or pin (501) shown in Fig. 5) and an annular groove having a pin groove diameter (first groove (111) shown in Fig. 1, or pin groove (517) shown in Fig. 5), wherein the outer pin diameter is larger than the pin groove diameter (Fig. 1, Fig. 5); a socket having an axial passageway of a first socket diameter (second member (103) including bore (113) shown in Fig. 1, or housing (503) including housing bore (513)) shown in Fig. 5), the axial passageway having a socket groove of a socket groove diameter (second groove (117) shown in Fig. 1, or housing groove (515) shown in Fig. 5), wherein the socket groove diameter is larger than the first socket diameter (Fig. 1, Fig. 5); a radial canted coil spring (canted coil spring (115) shown in Fig. 1, or canted coil spring (511) shown in Fig. 5), the radial canted coil spring in an uncompressed state having an outer diameter larger than the socket groove diameter (Para. [0057] “The outside diameter of the canted coil spring 511 is larger than the housing groove diameter, so that the canted coil spring exerts a force in a direction radially outward of an axis of insertion of the pin 501 into the housing 503”) and an inner diameter smaller than the pin groove diameter (Fig. 1, Fig. 5); wherein the axial passageway of the socket is adapted to receive the pin to an axial distance where the pin groove and the socket groove are at least partially axially aligned (Fig. 1, Fig. 5); and wherein at a position of the pin in the axial passageway of the socket where the pin groove and the socket groove are at least partially axially aligned the radial canted coil spring is compressed between the pin groove and the socket groove (Fig. 1, Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 25
Balsells teaches the safety release device of claim 24, wherein at a position of the pin in the axial passageway of the socket where the pin groove and the socket groove are at least partially axially aligned an outer portion of the radial canted coil spring is positioned in the socket groove and an inner portion of the radial canted coil spring is position in the pin groove (Fig. 1, Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 26
Balsells teaches the safety release device of claim 24 wherein an edge of the pin groove is chamfered (Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 28
Balsells teaches the safety release device of claim 24, wherein the pin has a nose (right side portion of pins shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 5) and a body portion (left side portion of pins shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 5), wherein the diameter of the nose is smaller than the diameter of the body portion (Fig. 1, Fig. 5), and wherein the pin has a lead-in radius from the nose to the body portion (Fig. 1 and Fig. 5 both show the right side of the pin having a lead-in radius starting at the nose and increasing as it reaches the body of portion).
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 1-5, 9-13, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mudge et al. (US 6360404 B1), hereinafter Mudge, in view of Balsells et al. (US 20100029145 A1), hereinafter Balsells.
Regarding Claim 1
Mudge teaches an animal handling device (Fig. 9) comprising: a strap having a first section and a second section (first and second sides of halter (37)); a pin side buckle coupled to a first end of the first section of the strap (male half (3)), the pin side buckle comprising a pin (keeper (5)) having an outer pin diameter (Examiner notes that the keeper has an outer diameter, Fig. 4) and an annular groove (lug (15)) having a pin groove diameter (Examiner notes that the lug has a diameter, Fig. 4), wherein the outer pin diameter is larger than the pin groove diameter (Fig. 4); a socket side buckle coupled to a first end of the second section of strap (female half (9)), the socket side buckle comprising a socket (gap (31)) having an axial passageway of a first socket diameter (Fig. 5), the axial passageway having a socket groove of a socket groove diameter (oval opening (7)), wherein the socket groove diameter is larger than the first socket diameter (Fig. 5); wherein the axial passageway of the socket is adapted to receive the pin to an axial distance where the pin groove and the socket groove are at least partially axially aligned (Fig. 8), but does not teach:
a radial canted coil spring, the radial canted coil spring in an uncompressed state having an outer diameter larger than the socket groove diameter and an inner diameter smaller than the pin groove diameter;
and wherein at a position of the pin in the axial passageway of the socket where the pin groove and the socket groove are at least partially axially aligned the radial canted coil spring is compressed between the pin groove and the socket groove.
Balsells teaches:
a pin having an outer pin diameter (outer diameter of first member (101) shown in Fig. 1, or pin (501) shown in Fig. 5) and an annular groove having a pin groove diameter (first groove (111) shown in Fig. 1, or pin groove (517) shown in Fig. 5), wherein the outer pin diameter is larger than the pin groove diameter (Fig. 1, Fig. 5)
a socket having an axial passageway of a first socket diameter (second member (103) including bore (113) shown in Fig. 1, or housing (503) including housing bore (513)) shown in Fig. 5), the axial passageway having a socket groove of a socket groove diameter (second groove (117) shown in Fig. 1, or housing groove (515) shown in Fig. 5), wherein the socket groove diameter is larger than the first socket diameter (Fig. 1, Fig. 5); wherein the axial passageway of the socket is adapted to receive the pin to an axial distance where the pin groove and the socket groove are at least partially axially aligned (Fig. 1, Fig. 5)
a radial canted coil spring (canted coil spring (115) shown in Fig. 1, or canted coil spring (511) shown in Fig. 5), the radial canted coil spring in an uncompressed state having an outer diameter larger than the socket groove diameter (Para. [0057] “The outside diameter of the canted coil spring 511 is larger than the housing groove diameter, so that the canted coil spring exerts a force in a direction radially outward of an axis of insertion of the pin 501 into the housing 503”) and an inner diameter smaller than the pin groove diameter (Fig. 1, Fig. 5);
and wherein at a position of the pin in the axial passageway of the socket where the pin groove and the socket groove are at least partially axially aligned the radial canted coil spring is compressed between the pin groove and the socket groove (Fig. 1, Fig. 5).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the noted features of Balsells with the teachings of Mudge since the combination of the two references is merely simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is, in the substitution of the pin and socket structure of the secondary reference(s) for the buckles of the primary reference. Examiner notes that both structures serve the same purpose as a safety release that disconnects two elements when a threshold force is exceeded. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding Claim 2
Mudge, in view of Balsells, teaches the safety release device of claim 1, wherein at a position of the pin in the axial passageway of the socket where the pin groove and the socket groove are at least partially axially aligned an outer portion of the radial canted coil spring is positioned in the socket groove and an inner portion of the radial canted coil spring is position in the pin groove (Balsells: Fig. 1, Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 3
Mudge, in view of Balsells, teaches the safety release device of claim 1 wherein an edge of the pin groove is chamfered (Balsells: Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 4
Mudge, in view of Balsells, teaches the safety release device of claim 1, wherein an edge of the socket groove has a radius (Examiner notes that Mudge shows the socket groove (7) having a radius, and that although the socket groove of Balsells does not, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the different portions of the socket groove of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47).
Regarding Claim 5
Mudge, in view of Balsells, teaches the safety release device of claim 1, wherein the pin has a nose (Balsells: right side portion of pins shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 5) and a body portion (Balsells: left side portion of pins shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 5), wherein the diameter of the nose is smaller than the diameter of the body portion (Balsells: Fig. 1, Fig. 5), and wherein the pin has a lead-in radius from the nose to the body portion (Balsells: Fig. 1 and Fig. 5 both show the right side of the pin having a lead-in radius starting at the nose and increasing as it reaches the body of portion).
Regarding Claim 9
Mudge, in view of Balsells, teaches the animal handling device of claim 1 wherein the pin side buckle further comprises a first substrate having a first strap opening and wherein a portion of the first section of the strap is positioned in the first strap opening (Mudge: open slot (23), Fig. 2, Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 10
Mudge, in view of Balsells, teaches the animal handling device of claim 1 wherein the socket side buckle further comprises a second substrate having a second strap opening and wherein a portion of the second section of the strap is positioned in the second strap opening (Mudge: open slot (25), Fig. 2, Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 11
Mudge, in view of Balsells, teaches the animal handling device of claim 1 further comprising: a boot for engaging a body part of an animal (Mudge: front section of halter (37) around horse’s mouth, Fig. 9); a handle (Mudge: Examiner notes that the top strap of halter (37) can be considered a handle); wherein the second end of the first section of the strap is coupled to the boot and the second end of the second section of the strap is coupled to the handle (Mudge: Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 12
Mudge, in view of Balsells, teaches the animal handling device of claim 1 further comprising: a boot for engaging a body part of an animal (Mudge: front section of halter (37) around horse’s mouth, Fig. 9); a handle (Mudge: Examiner notes that the top strap of halter (37) can be considered a handle); wherein the pin side buckle is coupled to the boot and the socket side buckle is coupled to the handle (Mudge: Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 13
Mudge, in view of Balsells, teaches the animal handling device of claim 1 further comprising: a boot for engaging a body part of a person or animal (Mudge: front section of halter (37) around horse’s mouth, Fig. 9); a handle (Mudge: Examiner notes that the top strap of halter (37) can be considered a handle), but does not teach:
wherein the socket side buckle is coupled to the boot and the pin side buckle is coupled to the handle.
Mudge, in view of Balsells, discloses the claimed invention except for which side of the safety release device is attached to the boot and handle, respectively. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the socket side buckle coupled to the boot and the pin side buckle coupled to the handle as claimed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding Claim 17
Mudge, in view of Balsells, teaches the animal handling device of claim 1 wherein the strap further comprises a halter (Mudge: Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 18
Mudge, in view of Balsells, teaches the animal handling device of claim 1 wherein an edge of the pin groove is chamfered (Balsells: Fig. 5); wherein the pin has a nose (Balsells: right side portion of pins shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 5) and a body portion (Balsells: left side portion of pins shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 5), wherein the diameter of the nose is smaller than the diameter of the body portion (Balsells: Fig. 1, Fig. 5), and wherein the pin has a lead-in radius from the nose to the body portion (Balsells: Fig. 1 and Fig. 5 both show the right side of the pin having a lead-in radius starting at the nose and increasing as it reaches the body of portion); and wherein at a position of the pin in the axial passageway of the socket where the pin groove and the socket groove are at least partially axially aligned an outer portion of the radial canted coil spring is positioned in the socket groove and an inner portion of the radial canted coil spring is position in the pin groove (Balsells: Fig. 1, Fig. 5), but does not teach:
wherein an edge of the socket groove has a radius.
Mudge, in view of Balsells, discloses the claimed invention except for the edge of the socket groove having a radius. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the different portions of the socket groove of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. Examiner notes that Belsells does teach a socket groove with chamfered internal edges, as shown in Fig. 5, but the edges are not explicitly curved and therefore do not have a defined radius.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mudge et al. (US 6360404 B1), hereinafter Mudge, in view of Balsells et al. (US 20100029145 A1), hereinafter Balsells, as applied to claims 1-5, 9-13, 17, and 18 above, and further in view of Munroe (US 11528890 B1), hereinafter Munroe.
Regarding Claim 14
Mudge, in view of Balsells, teaches the animal handling device of claim 1, but is silent on:
wherein the strap further comprises a lunge line.
Munroe teaches:
wherein the strap further comprises a lunge line (lunge line (20), Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the animal handling device of Mudge, in view of Balsells, with the lunge line of Munroe with a reasonable expectation of success and with the motivation of providing a means to control the animal. Examiner notes that lunge lines are well-known and commonly used in directing horses, especially used in conjunction with a halter, such as the one disclosed by Mudge.
Regarding Claim 15
Mudge, in view of Balsells, teaches the animal handling device of claim 1, but is silent on:
wherein the strap further comprises a cross-tie.
Munroe teaches:
wherein the strap further comprises a cross-tie (“lunge, rope, or leash” box (306), Fig. 3, Examiner notes that the rope or leash can be considered a cross-tie).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the animal handling device of Mudge, in view of Balsells, with the cross-tie of Munroe with a reasonable expectation of success and with the motivation of providing a means to control the animal. Examiner notes that cross-ties are well-known and commonly used in restraining horses, especially used in conjunction with a halter, such as the one disclosed by Mudge.
Regarding Claim 16
Mudge, in view of Balsells, teaches the animal handling device of claim 1, but is silent on:
wherein the strap further comprises a leash.
Munroe teaches:
wherein the strap further comprises a leash (“lunge, rope, or leash” box (306), Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the animal handling device of Mudge, in view of Balsells, with the leash of Munroe with a reasonable expectation of success and with the motivation of providing a means to control the animal. Examiner notes that leashes are well-known and commonly used in directing and restraining horses, especially used in conjunction with a halter, such as the one disclosed by Mudge.
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rachmaninoff et al. (US 20210101044 A1), hereinafter Rachmaninoff, in view of Bensoussan et al. (Machine Translation of WO 2015185873 A1), hereinafter Benoussan.
Regarding Claim 21
Rachmaninoff teaches a stretching device for engaging a body part of a person or animal (stretching device (100)) comprising: a boot adapted to engage a body part of a person or animal (boot (120)); a first strap coupled on a first end to the boot (band sections (112, 114)); a handle (handles (130)); a second strap coupled on a first end to the handle (straps (132)), but does not teach:
a safety release having a first side coupled to the second end of the first strap and a second side coupled to the second end of the second strap, wherein the first side of the safety release is releasably attached to the second side of the safety release.
Bensoussan teaches:
a safety release (device (1)) having a first side coupled to the second end of a connection point (carabiner (11) attached to wall (32)) and a second side coupled to the second end of the second strap (second attachment member (28) connected to rope (33)), wherein the first side of the safety release is releasably attached to the second side of the safety release (Claim 1 “under the effect of the upper axial traction force at the determined limit value, exerted relatively on the male assembly (2) in the disengagement direction to separate from one another said male (2) and female (3) assemblies”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the stretching device of Rachmaninoff with the safety release of Bensoussan with a reasonable expectation of success and with the motivation of providing a means for the device to release if too much force is exerted, thereby increasing the safety of the device for both the animal and the user (Bensoussan: Page 3 Para. 4). Examiner notes that although the first side of the safety release device of Bensoussan is coupled to a wall, when applied to the device of Rachmaninoff, the first side would be coupled to the second end of the first strap as claimed.
Regarding Claim 22
Rachmaninoff, in view of Bensoussan, teaches the stretching device as claimed in claim 21 wherein the safety release is adapted to separate the first side of the safety release from the second side of the safety release when forces pulling apart the handle and the boot exceed a predetermined threshold (Bensoussan: Page 3 Para. 6 “the device according to the invention may advantageously be used in any situation where it is desirable to obtain the automatic disconnection of two previously connected assemblies, when the tensile force exerted on them reaches a threshold limit”).
Regarding Claim 23
Rachmaninoff teaches an animal handling device (stretching device (100)) comprising: a strap having a first section and a second section (band sections (112, 114)), but does not teach:
a safety release coupled on a first side to a first end of the first section and coupled on a second side to a first end of the second section; and wherein the first side of the safety release is releasably coupled to the second side of the safety release.
Bensoussan teaches:
a safety release (device (1)) coupled to a first side to a first end of the first section (carabiner (11) attached to wall (32)) and coupled on a second side to a first end of the second section (second attachment member (28) connected to rope (33)); wherein the first side of the safety release is releasably coupled to the second side of the safety release (Claim 1 “under the effect of the upper axial traction force at the determined limit value, exerted relatively on the male assembly (2) in the disengagement direction to separate from one another said male (2) and female (3) assemblies”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the stretching device of Rachmaninoff with the safety release of Bensoussan with a reasonable expectation of success and with the motivation of providing a means for the device to release if too much force is exerted, thereby increasing the safety of the device for both the animal and the user (Bensoussan: Page 3 Para. 4). Examiner notes that when applied to the device of Rachmaninoff, the safety release is coupled to the first and second sections of the strap as claimed.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balsells et al. (US 20100029145 A1), hereinafter Balsells.
Regarding Claim 27
Balsells teaches the safety release device of claim 24, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein an edge of the socket groove has a radius.
Balsells discloses the claimed invention except for the edge of the socket groove having a radius. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the different portions of the socket groove of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. Examiner notes that Belsells does teach a socket groove with chamfered internal edges, as shown in Fig. 5, but the edges are not explicitly curved and therefore do not have a defined radius.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8, 19, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
US 20180199548 A1 – “Break Away Animal Collar”
US 20130092088 A1 – “Portable Pet Restraint Device”
US 6671933 B1 – “Safety Coupler With Release Mechanism”
US 5988927 A – “Breakaway Connector System For Elements Loaded In Tension”
US 5564131 A – “Breakaway Buckle For Use In Coupling Suspenders And The Like To A Back Supporting Belt And The Like”
US 5450820 A – “Quick Release Dog Collar”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katherine June Walter whose telephone number is (571)272-6150. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at (571)272-6909. 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.
/K.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647