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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 05/13/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-15, 21 will be examined.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/13/2026.
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 8-9, 14-15, 21 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.
These claims refer to a set of government standards that are not considered definite standards because they can be modified at any given point of time. Therefore, the standards being referred to are considered indefinite as one of ordinary skill in the art will not be able to know which version of the standards is being referred to without reference to a specific version (i.e. dated) of said standards. For the purpose of examination, it will be considered to refer to the first version of these standards.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). A Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives defined by the Markush group (i.e., alternatives from which a selection is to be made in the context of a combination or process, or alternative chemical compounds as a whole) share a “single structural similarity” and a common use. A Markush grouping meets these requirements in two situations. First, a Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives are all members of the same recognized physical or chemical class or the same art-recognized class, and are disclosed in the specification or known in the art to be functionally equivalent and have a common use. Second, where a Markush grouping describes alternative chemical compounds, whether by words or chemical formulas, and the alternatives do not belong to a recognized class as set forth above, the members of the Markush grouping may be considered to share a “single structural similarity” and common use where the alternatives share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. See MPEP § 2117.
The Markush grouping of “said first strand, said second strand, said double lock, and said first locking mechanism” in claim 3 and “said first single strand, said second single strand, said toothed portion, said hinge, said locking mechanism, said coupling interface and said coupling link” in claim 5 is improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use for the following reasons: these members are not considered to be functionally equivalent to each other because they all serve different functions in the device and cannot be interchanged with one another.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant may set forth each alternative (or grouping of patentably indistinct alternatives) within an improper Markush grouping in a series of independent or dependent claims and/or present convincing arguments that the group members recited in the alternative within a single claim in fact share a single structural similarity as well as a common use.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heiney US 20200131807.
Claim 1. Heiney discloses a restraint device for readily restraining an individual comprising:
(a) a first single strand (108);
(b) a second single strand (112) hingedly attached (at 104) to said first single strand; and
(c) a first locking mechanism (142) requiring a key (120)to open said locking mechanism. (paragraph 50, fig1-2)
Claim 2. Heiney discloses the restraint device for readily restraining an individual of claim 1, further comprising a double lock locking mechanism (152, paragraphs 49-50).
Claim 3. Heiney discloses the restraint device for readily restraining an individual of claim 2, further comprising a ratchet mechanism (140 + 146+ 150; Note: A mechanism can be a group of any members or parts of members that work together to perform such function.) for readily preventing inadvertent displacement of a mechanism selected from the group consisting of: said first strand, said second strand, said double lock and said first locking mechanism. (fig1-2, paragraphs 41-43, 48)
Claim 4. Heiney discloses the restraint device for readily restraining an individual of claim 1 further comprising a toothed portion (140), a hinge (110 in 104 creates the hinge) attached to said first single strand and said second single strand, a locking mechanism (152), a coupling interface (124)and a coupling link (126).
Claim 5. Heiney discloses the restraint device for readily restraining an individual of claim 4 wherein at least three components selected from the group consisting of: said first single strand, said second single strand, said toothed portion, said hinge, said locking mechanism, said coupling interface and said coupling link are constructed of a polymer. (NOTE: Paragraph 81 states that any and all elements in the device of Heiney can be made of polymer.)
Claim 6. Heiney discloses the restraint device for readily restraining an individual of claim 4 wherein said restraint device is at constructed of at least 60% Polymers by weight. (NOTE: Paragraph 81 states that any and all elements in the device of Heiney can be partially and/or fully made of polymer, therefore Heiney is capable of disclosing the device is constructed of at least 60% polymers.)
Claim 7. Heiney discloses the restraint device for readily restraining an individual of claim 4 wherein said restraint device is at constructed of at least 100% Polymers. (NOTE: Paragraph 81 states that any and all elements in the device of Heiney can be partially and/or fully made of polymer, therefore Heiney is capable of disclosing the device is constructed of at least 60% polymers.)
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.
Claim(s) 8-15, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heiney US 20200131807 as applied to claim 1, alone.
Claim 8. Heiney teaches the restraint device for readily restraining an individual of claim 4, however does not teach specifically meeting government standards.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Heiney is fully capable of being a Type 3 restraint device according Criminal Justice Restraints NIJ Standard 1001.00 in order to comply with government standards for use.
Claim 9. Heiney teaches the restraint device for readily restraining an individual of claim 4 however does not teach specifically meeting government standards.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Heiney is fully capable of being a Type 4 restraint device according Criminal Justice Restraints NIJ Standard 1001.00 in order to comply with government standards for use.
Claim 10. Heiney teaches the device of claim 1, therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Heiney is also capable of teaching a method for restraining an individual, said method comprises the steps of:
a) providing the device of claim 1;
b) securing said device to at least one extremity of an individual;
c) placing said device within a facility; and
d) activating said system or said device. (fig1-2, paragraphs 41-50)
Claim 11. Heiney teaches the method of restraining an individual according to claim 10 wherein said restraining device further comprising a toothed portion (140), a hinge (110 in 104 creates the hinge) attached to said first single strand and said second single strand, a locking mechanism (152), a coupling interface (124)and a coupling link (126). (fig1-2)
Claim 12. Heiney teaches the method of restraining an individual according to claim 10 wherein said restraint device is at constructed of at least 60% Polymers by weight. (NOTE: Paragraph 81 states that any and all elements in the device of Heiney can be partially and/or fully made of polymer, therefore Heiney is capable of disclosing the device is constructed of at least 60% polymers.)
Claim 13. Heiney teaches the method of restraining an individual according to claim 10 wherein said restraint device is at constructed of at least 100% Polymers by weight. (NOTE: Paragraph 81 states that any and all elements in the device of Heiney can be partially and/or fully made of polymer, therefore Heiney is capable of disclosing the device is constructed of at least 60% polymers.)
Claim 14. Heiney teaches the method of restraining an individual according to claim 10 however does not teach specifically meeting government standards.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Heiney is fully capable of being a Type 3 restraint device according Criminal Justice Restraints NIJ Standard 1001.00 in order to comply with government standards for use.
Claim 15. Heiney teaches the method of restraining an individual according to claim 10 however does not teach specifically meeting government standards.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Heiney is fully capable of being a Type4 restraint device according Criminal Justice Restraints NIJ Standard 1001.00 in order to comply with government standards for use.
Claim 21. Heiney teaches the restraint device for readily restraining an individual of claim 4 however does not teach specifically meeting government standards.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Heiney is fully capable of meeting or exceeding Type 4 restraint device Criminal Justice Restraints NIJ Standard 1001.00 in order to comply with government standards for use.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Art is related to restraint devices.
Related but not relied upon prior art: US 11035154, US 1780473, US 20130033810.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARIA F. AHMAD whose telephone number is (571)270-1334. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 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, Christine M. Mills can be reached at (571) 272-8322. 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.
/F.F.A./
Examiner
Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights