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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Examiner suggests amending the general format of claim 1 to read as below, or similar, in order to improve comprehension and overcome informalities (112s noted below are not fixed in the following suggestion, only minor informalities):
--A multifunctional pet traction rope
a rope body, a hook fixed to one end of the rope body for attachment to a pet's collar or harness, and an adjustment buckle comprising at least four threading holes arranged in at least two rows;
wherein:
the rope body passes through two of these threading holes, forming a first limiting section between the two threading holes;
the end of the rope body, away from the hook, passes through two of the remaining threading holes, forming a second limiting section located between the first limiting section and the adjustment buckle;
a loop is formed by segments of the rope body between the first limiting section and the second limiting section;
the end of the rope body adjacent to the hook slides relative to the adjustment buckle, allowing a position of the first limiting section on the rope body to change and thereby adjust a size of the loop.--
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 1-10 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 "these threading holes" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, and with the word ‘these’, it is unclear whether the applicant is referring to threading holes not otherwise claimed. Should the applicant be referring to the at least four threading holes, “these threading holes” should read –the at least four threading holes--.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the end of the rope body, away from the hook” in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “the rope body adjacent to the hook slides relative to the adjustment buckle, allowing…” This limitation uses active verbiage often reserved for method claims, and appear to positively recite method steps. For example, a step of sliding. When both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus are claimed within the same claim, it is unclear whether infringement would occur when the apparatus is constructed or when the apparatus is used; therefore, the claim has an indefinite scope. See MPEP § 2173.05(p)(II). Being that the claims are directed to an apparatus, as best understood, all such language will be treated as purely functional recitations or recitations of intended use (see MPEP 2173.05(g); MPEP 2114), as such, these limitations will only require that there exist structure with the ability to perform such functions/steps. The examiner suggests using language like “configured to”, “capable of”, etc., rather than active verbiage or method-language to improve the clarity of the claim. For example, --the rope body adjacent to the hook is configured to slide relative to the adjustment buckle--
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation that the buckle is made of “metal, plastic, or ceramic material”, and the claim also recites “the metal material is stainless steel, copper, or aluminum” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 9 recites “a connection part of the end buckle with the rope body abuts against an edge of the threading hole.” It is unclear what this statement means, particularly in regard to the bolded segment – must the rope body also abut against an edge of the hole? Is it merely referencing that the end buckle is fixed to the rope body?
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the threading hole” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Spangenberg (DE 9107828, hereinafter referred to as Spangenberg, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above.
Regarding claim 1:
Spangenberg discloses a multifunctional pet traction rope (¶0004), wherein, comprising a rope body (round rope 1, Fig 2), a hook (see hook at bottom of round rope in Fig 1) fixed to one end of the rope body (see hook at bottom of round rope in Fig 1) for attachment to a pet's collar or harness (intended use: capable of being used as such), and an adjustment buckle (loop plate 2, Fig 2); at least four threading holes are opened on the adjustment buckle (see holes in Fig 2 – 5 holes), arranged in at least two rows (5 rows, each hole being in their own row); the rope body passes through two of these threading holes, forming a first limiting section between the two threading holes; the end of the rope body, away from the hook, passes through two of the remaining threading holes, forming a second limiting section located between the first limiting section and the adjustment buckle (see annotated Fig 2 below); a loop is formed by segments of the rope body between the first section and the second limiting section (see handle loop in Fig 1); the end of the rope body adjacent to the hook slides relative to the adjustment buckle, allowing a position of the first limiting section on the rope body to change and thereby adjust a size of the loop (see Fig 1, ¶0008-0009).
PNG
media_image1.png
454
414
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6:
Spangenberg discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the threading holes are circular, oval, polygonal, or flower-shaped (see Fig 2).
Regarding claim 8:
Spangenberg discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the rope body is made of nylon material, plastic material, or woven strap (Pg 7, under 6. – “nylon”).
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.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spangenberg, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Robins (US 3997945), hereinafter referred to as Robins, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above.
Regarding claim 2:
Spangenberg discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Spangenberg fails to specifically disclose wherein the adjustment buckle has a rectangular or square plate-like structure, and the adjustment buckle has four threading holes corresponding to four corners of the adjustment buckle, or the adjustment buckle has four threading holes corresponding to four edges of the adjustment buckle.
Robins discloses a similar cable locking system with an adjustment buckle (Plate 51A, Fig 5) that has a rectangular or square plate-like structure, and four threading holes corresponding to four corners of the adjustment buckle, or the adjustment buckle has four threading holes corresponding to four edges of the adjustment buckle (see Fig 5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the adjustment buckle as a rectangular plate structure with four of the holes (those which the first and second thread through) arranged corresponding to the corners of the buckle, as in Robins, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification so as to increase frictional force between the rope segments, thereby helping hold the cord more securely in tension. Further, as seen in Figs 4-5 of Robins, the hole arrangement of Spangenberg is a known equivalent to the rectangular arrangement in Fig 5 of Robins, and the selection of any known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. A rectangle may be a desirably shape due to its simplicity and ease of manufacture. Moreover, it has been held that there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23. Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C); In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 4:
Spangenberg discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Spangenberg fails to specifically disclose wherein the first limiting section and the second limiting section are arranged to intersect, with an angle between the first section and the second limiting section being either acute or obtuse.
Robins discloses a similar cable locking system with an adjustment buckle (Plate 51A, Fig 5) with four threading holes through which first and second limiting sections of a rope intersect at either an acute or obtuse angle (see Fig 5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the adjustment buckle with four of the holes (those which the first and second thread through) arranged as in Robins, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification so as to increase frictional force between the rope segments, thereby helping hold the cord more securely in tension. Further, as seen in Figs 4-5 of Robins, the hole arrangement of Spangenberg is a known equivalent to the rectangular arrangement in Fig 5 of Robins, and the selection of any known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C); In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spangenberg, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Miles (US 9694877), hereinafter referred to as Miles, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above.
Regarding claim 5:
Spangenberg discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Spangenberg fails to specifically disclose wherein an angle between the first limiting section and the second limiting section is a right angle.
Miles discloses a similar plate rope lock system with four holes, each at a right angle to the other, such that when the rope is threaded through the holes so as to have a first limiting section and a second limiting section, an angle between the sections is a right angle (see Fig 11).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rearranged the four holes through which the first limiting section and second limiting section thread in Spangenberg to have the perpendicular arrangement, as in Miles, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification because One would have been motivated to make such a modification so as to increase frictional force between the rope segments so as to help hold the cord more securely in tension, or to increase the length of the rope threaded through the holes, so as to better distribute the force over a greater area and help prevent rope damage. Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C); In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 7:
Spangenberg discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Spangenberg fails to specifically disclose wherein the adjustment buckle is made of metal, plastic, or ceramic material; the metal material is stainless steel, copper, or aluminum.
Miles discloses a similar adjustment buckle made of metal, plastic, or ceramic material (Col 5, lines 10-15).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the adjustment buckle of Spangenberg of a metal, plastic, or ceramic material, as in Miles, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide sufficient strength or hardness to prevent bending or wear when the rope threaded therethrough is under tension. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spangenberg, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of How (US 20240167537 A1), hereinafter referred to as How, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above.
Regarding claim 3:
Spangenberg discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the adjustment buckle has five threading holes (see Fig 2) corresponding to five corners or edges of a pentagon (corresponding in number to the five corners/edges of a pentagon).
Spangenberg fails to specifically disclose that the adjustment buckle has a pentagonal plate-like structure.
How discloses an adjustment buckle that has a pentagonal plate-like structure with threading holes distributed evenly spaced thereon (Fig 14F).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the adjustment buckle of Spangenberg in the form of a pentagon, as in How, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide the user with a more easily greppable buckle for ease of adjustment of the rope. Further, it has been held that there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spangenberg, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kennedy (US 5351367), hereinafter referred to as Kennedy, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above.
Regarding claim 9:
Spangenberg discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Spangenberg fails to disclose wherein it further includes an end buckle, which is fixed at the end of the rope body away from the hook, and a connection part of the end buckle with the rope body abuts against an edge of the threading hole.
Kennedy discloses a similar line tensioner device through which a rope is threaded, and wherein an end buckle is fixed at the end of the rope body after passing through the tensioner, with the end buckle abutting against an edge of a threading hole (see anchor means 32, Fig 1B and Fig 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided an end buckle, as in Kennedy, at the free end of the rope of Spangenberg, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification because, as disclosed in Kennedy, doing so helps prevent fraying of the rope, and helps prevent the line from being pulled through the body 50 (Col 5, lines 5-10 and 30-40); ; this would create a more secure leash locking mechanism, adding an additional safety measure to the leash getting pulled out of the adjustment buckle.
Regarding claim 10:
The modified reference discloses the limitations of claim 9 above and Kennedy further discloses wherein a cross-sectional dimension of the end buckle is greater than or equal to a cross-sectional dimension of the threading hole (Col 5, lines 30-40; see Fig 3), and the end buckle is detachably connected to the rope body (broad detachability is inherent to the structure).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shannon (US 3409014), Lang (US 1665745), Libecco (US 2001/0001340), Kupperman (US 4105349), Kohne (DE 202004018741), Chirico (US 20120204813), Ikeda (JP 4305693), Forte (FR 3036681), Ishida (EP 0848187), exhibit significant similarities to the present invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOK V SCHMID whose telephone number is (571)270-0141. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30ish.
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, Joshua Huson, can be reached on 571-270-5301. 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.
/B.V.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642