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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: (117a) and (117b).
The drawings are objected to because the references numbers from Figs. 9b and 10 are not legible, and the recesses 18 and 118 from Figs. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8 and 9b does not show a recess.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 39 and 44 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 39, line 8 “the body” should be - - the accessory body - -.
Claim 39, line 18 “one or more corresponding holes” should be - - the one or more corresponding recesses - -.
Claim 39, line 23 “and body” should be - - and the accessory body - -.
Claim 39, line 26 “the inner surface” should be - - an inner surface - -.
Claim 39, line 37 “millimetres” should be - - millimeters - -.
Claim 44, line 3 “millimetres” should be - - millimeters - -.
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.
The term “substantially” in claims 39, 41 and 42 are a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is suggested to delete the term “substantially” from the claims.
Claims 40 and 43-45 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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 39-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allom (WO 2012/162737 cited by applicant).
Regarding claim 39, Allom discloses a shoe lace accessory comprising:
an accessory body having a generally circular profile, the accessory body including a locking projection (see annotated Fig. 5);
a lid having a generally circular profile and including a generally circular receiving portion on an outer portion of the lid, the lid attached to the accessory body by a hinge such that the lid and the accessory body can be closed together by moving the lid between an open state and a closed state and configured in a locked configuration by locking the lid to the body via the locking projection with a push fit (see annotated Fig. 5 and Fig. 6);
an exchangeable decorative cap being smaller than the generally circular receiving portion and having one or more pins extending therefrom, and a securing part located on or adjacent to an inner surface of the lid, the securing part having one or more recesses configured to receive the one or more pins (see annotated Fig. 5);
the exchangeable decorative cap being securable to the lid by configuring the lid in an open state and positioning the exchangeable decorative cap within the generally circular receiving portion such that the one or more pins fit through one or more corresponding holes in the lid and engage the one or more recesses with a push fit to maintain the cap in place, the exchangeable decorative cap further secured to prevent accidental removal by configuring the lid in the closed state with the lid and the accessory body in the locked configuration (see annotated Fig. 5 and Fig. 6); and
a lace holding portion formed within the accessory body when the lid and body are closed together, the lace holding portion comprising a first portion extending from an inner surface of the accessory body toward the inner surface of the lid and a second portion extending from the inner surface of the lid toward the inner surface of the accessory body, wherein a shoe lace is knotted to form a knot within the first portion while the lid and the accessory body are in the open state and the shoe lace is secured by the second portion when the lid and the accessory body are in the closed state, the second portion substantially covering the knot in a manner that firmly holds the shoe lace without causing damage to the shoe lace (see Fig. 2 and annotated Fig. 5),
wherein in the closed state the lace holding portion firmly holds the shoe lace without causing damage to the shoe lace, the lid substantially covers the knot, and the exchangeable decorative cap is secured to prevent accidental removal (see Figs 1 and 2)
Allom discloses the claimed invention except for the lid, the exchangeable decorative cap, and the accessory body together form a profile of less than 20 millimetres in the closed state. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the lid, the exchangeable decorative cap, and the accessory body together form a profile of less than 20 millimetres in the closed state, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), and Gardner v. TEC 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
PNG
media_image1.png
676
729
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 40, Allom discloses the claimed invention except for a first material for the accessory body being a plastics material chosen from the group consisting of: polyethylene; poly vinyl chloride ("PVC"); and polypropylene, and a second material for the lid or the exchangeable decorative cap being a different plastic material or a rubber material, the second material being softer than the first material. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have a first material for the accessory body being a plastics material chosen from the group consisting of: polyethylene; poly vinyl chloride ("PVC"); and polypropylene, and a second material for the lid or the exchangeable decorative cap being a different plastic material or a rubber material, the second material being softer than the first material, since 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. It is known in the art that shoe lace accessory is made from different type of plastic.
Regarding claim 41, Allom further discloses, comprising a pair of lace holes in the accessory body, the pair of lace holes located on opposite sides of the lace holding portion and adapted for receipt of the shoe lace, wherein, before the shoe lace is tied, a first end of the shoe lace is fed through a first of the pair of lace holes toward the inner surface of the accessory body and a second end of the shoe lace is fed through a second of the pair of lace holes toward the inner surface of the accessory body such that once the knot is tied, the knot is substantially contained within the lace holding portion and the shoe lace is held firmly by the second portion in the closed state (see annotated Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 42, Allom discloses, wherein, the first portion and the second portion of the lace holding portion are each substantially circular (see annotated Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 43, Allom discloses, wherein the first portion is configured to be smaller in diameter than the second portion, such that in the closed state the first portion and the second portion form concentric circular parts, with the knot in the center and the lace held by the second portion to prevent movement of the lace (see annotated Fig. 5 and Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 44, Allom discloses the claimed invention except for the lid, the exchangeable decorative cap, and the accessory body together form a profile of less than 10 millimetres in the closed state. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the lid, the exchangeable decorative cap, and the accessory body together form a profile of less than 10 millimetres in the closed state, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), and Gardner v. TEC 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Regarding claim 45, Allom discloses, wherein the locking projection engages a mating part of the lid to secure in lid place in the closed position (see annotated Fig. 5 and Fig. 6).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOUIS A MERCADO whose telephone number is (571)270-5388. 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, Jason W. San can be reached at 571-272-6531. 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.
/LOUIS A. MERCADO/
Examiner
Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677