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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-5, 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Prusia (US 20020035968 A1).
Regarding claim 1: Prusia discloses a pet leash system (10) comprising: a cord comprising a length of material (12) extending from a pet end (28) to a handler end (23);
a hook (20) connected to the cord at the pet end of the cord, the hook being adapted to connect the pet leash system to a pet to be walked by a handler (Fig. 1);
a graspable member (22) at the handler end, the graspable member being adapted to be grasped by the handler so the handler can control a pet connected to the hook; and
an accessory attachment mechanism (36) in or on the cord, wherein the accessory mechanism comprises one or more apertures (36) sized, shaped, and adapted to carry a pet walking accessory (apertures 36 could perform this function), and
wherein the accessory attachment mechanism is adapted to allow a handler to attach one or more pet walking accessories to the pet leash system so the accessories can be accessed while the handler is walking the pet (apertures 36 could be used to carry accessories, therefore meeting this limitation).
Regarding claim 2: Prusia discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further discloses wherein the graspable member (22) is a loop that is an extension of the cord (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3: Prusia discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further discloses wherein the cord (12) is flat or round and at least partially flexible (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4: Prusia discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further discloses wherein accessory attachment mechanism is adapted to allow a handler to attach a plurality of accessories to the pet leash system (apertures 36 could be used to carry accessories, therefore meeting this limitation).
Regarding claim 5: Prusia discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further discloses wherein the accessory attachment mechanism (36) is positioned on a body of the cord between the hook (20) and the graspable member (22, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9: Prusia discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further discloses wherein the one or more apertures extend through a thickness of the cord (12, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10: Prusia discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further discloses wherein the accessory attachment mechanism (36) comprises a plurality of apertures that extend through a thickness of the cord (12, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11: Prusia discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further discloses wherein the accessory attachment mechanism comprises an aperture (36) that extends through a thickness of the cord (Fig. 1), the aperture being formed by a grommet (34).
Regarding claim 12: Prusia discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further discloses wherein the one or more apertures (36) extend through a thickness of the cord and have a round or polygonal shape (Fig. 3).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arnold (US 9807980 B2).
Regarding claim 27: Arnold discloses a method of walking a pet, the method comprising: providing a pet leash system, the pet leash system (100) comprising:
a cord (102) comprising a length of material extending from a pet end to a handler end; a hook (122) connected to the cord at the pet end of the cord, the hook being adapted to connect the pet leash system to a pet to be walked by a handler (Fig. 13);
a graspable member (120) at the handler end, the graspable member being adapted to be grasped by the handler so the handler can control a pet connected to the hook (Fig. 13); and
an accessory attachment mechanism (200,202) in or on the cord, connecting the hook to a pet (Fig. 13), attaching one or more accessories to the cord (Col 5 lines 3-32), and grasping the graspable member and walking the pet with the one or more accessories attached to the cord (Col 5 lines 3-32),
wherein the one or more accessory comprises one or more of a pet waste bag, a pet waste bag containing pet waste, hand sanitizer, sanitizing wipes, a portable water bowl, a container for snacks or treats, a flashlight, a reflector, pepper spray, a whistle, a water container, a key, and sunscreen (Col 5 lines 26-30).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6-7, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prusia as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shiraki (US 6675742 B1).
Regarding claim 6: Prusia discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Prusia fails to teach wherein the accessory attachment mechanism includes at least a portion that is positioned on the graspable member.
However, Shiraki teaches wherein the accessory attachment mechanism (40) includes at least a portion that is positioned on the graspable member (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the apertures as disclosed by Prusia with the handle apertures as taught by Shiraki with a reasonable expectation of success because providing apertures on the handle would allow a user to either size the handle as appropriate for the desired size of the user or provide means of attachment for accessories.
Regarding claim 7: Prusia discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the graspable member (22) is a loop that is an extension of the cord.
Prusia fails to teach wherein the accessory attachment mechanism includes at least a portion that is positioned on the graspable member.
However, Shiraki teaches wherein the accessory attachment mechanism (40) includes at least a portion that is positioned on the graspable member (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the apertures as disclosed by Prusia with the handle apertures as taught by Shiraki with a reasonable expectation of success because providing apertures on the handle would allow a user to either size the handle as appropriate for the desired size of the user or provide means of attachment for accessories.
Claims 8, 13-16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prusia as applied to claims 1, 17 above, and further in view of Arnold (US 9807980 B2).
Regarding claim 8: Prusia discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Prusia fails to teach wherein the accessory attachment mechanism further comprises one or more of a hook, a magnet, a snap, a button, and a hook and loop fastener.
However, Arnold teaches wherein the accessory attachment mechanism further comprises one or more of a hook, a magnet, a snap, a button, and a hook and loop fastener (Col 5 lines 6-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the apertures as disclosed by Prusia with the connectors as taught by Arnold with a reasonable expectation of success because providing connectors on the leash would provide a more user friendly experience as the user can reduce the amount of items they must carry while walking their animal.
Regarding claim 13: Prusia discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Prusia fails to teach wherein the pet leash system further comprises one or more accessories, wherein the one or more accessories are adapted to be attached to the pet leash system using the accessory attachment mechanism.
However, Arnold teaches wherein the pet leash system further comprises one or more accessories, wherein the one or more accessories are adapted to be attached to the pet leash system using the accessory attachment mechanism (200,202, Col 5 lines 3-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the apertures as disclosed by Prusia with the accessories as taught by Arnold with a reasonable expectation of success because providing accessories on the leash would provide a more user friendly experience as they can reduce the amount of storage required on their persons.
Regarding claim 14: Prusia discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Prusia fails to teach wherein the pet leash system further comprises one or more accessories and one or more connectors, wherein the one or more accessories are adapted to be attached to the pet leash system using the one or more connectors.
However, Arnold teaches wherein the pet leash system further comprises one or more accessories and one or more connectors, wherein the one or more accessories are adapted to be attached to the pet leash system using the one or more connectors (Col 5 lines 3-32 describe the use of connections and accessories).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the apertures as disclosed by Prusia with the connectors as taught by Arnold with a reasonable expectation of success because providing connectors on the leash would provide a more user friendly experience as the user can reduce the amount of items they must carry while walking their animal.
Regarding claim 15: Prusia discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Prusia fails to teach wherein the pet leash system further comprises one or more connectors, wherein the one or more connectors are adapted to attach the one or more accessories to the pet leash system using the accessory attachment mechanism.
However, Arnold teaches wherein the pet leash system further comprises one or more connectors, wherein the one or more connectors are adapted to attach the one or more accessories to the pet leash system using the accessory attachment mechanism (Col 5 lines 3-32 describe this limitation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the apertures as disclosed by Prusia with the accessories as taught by Arnold with a reasonable expectation of success because providing accessories on the leash would provide a more user friendly experience as they can reduce the amount of storage required on their persons.
Regarding claim 16: Prusia discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Prusia fails to teach wherein the pet leash system further comprises one or more accessories, wherein the one or more accessories are adapted to be attached to the pet leash system using the accessory attachment mechanism, and wherein the one or more accessory comprises one or more of a pet waste bag, a pet waste bag containing pet waste, hand sanitizer, sanitizing wipes, a portable water bowl, a container for snacks or treats, a flashlight, a reflector, pepper spray, a whistle, a water container, a key, and sunscreen.
However, Arnold teaches wherein the pet leash system further comprises one or more accessories, wherein the one or more accessories are adapted to be attached to the pet leash system using the accessory attachment mechanism, and wherein the one or more accessory comprises one or more of a pet waste bag, a pet waste bag containing pet waste, hand sanitizer, sanitizing wipes, a portable water bowl, a container for snacks or treats, a flashlight, a reflector, pepper spray, a whistle, a water container, a key, and sunscreen (Col 5 lines 3-32 describe whistle, toys, treats, or waste bag dispensers as possible accessories).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the apertures as disclosed by Prusia with the accessories as taught by Arnold with a reasonable expectation of success because providing accessories on the leash would provide a more user friendly experience as they can reduce the amount of storage required on their persons.
Claims 17-20, 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prusia (US 20020035968 A1) in view of Arnold (US 9807980 B2).
Regarding claim 17: Prusia discloses a pet leash system (10) comprising: a cord (12) comprising a length of material extending from a pet end (28) to a handler end (23); a hook (20) connected to the cord at the pet end of the cord, the hook being adapted to connect the pet leash system to a pet to be walked by a handler (Fig. 1); a graspable member (22) at the handler end, the graspable member being adapted to be grasped by the handler so the handler can control a pet connected to the hook (Fig. 1); and an accessory attachment mechanism (36) in or on a body of the cord that extends between the hook and the graspable member or on the graspable member (Fig. 1), wherein the accessory attachment mechanism is adapted to allow a handler to attach the accessory to the pet leash system so the accessory can be accessed while the handler is walking the pet (apertures 36 could be used to carry accessories, therefore meeting this limitation).
Prusia fails to teach an accessory attachable to the body of the cord by the accessory attachment mechanism.
However, Arnold teaches an accessory attachable to the body of the cord by the accessory attachment mechanism (Col 5 lines 3-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the apertures as disclosed by Prusia with the accessories as taught by Arnold with a reasonable expectation of success because providing accessories on the leash would provide the user with less amount of items needed to be carried either on their persons, or in another bag, further optimizing the apparatus to be friendlier to the user walking the animal.
Regarding claim 18: Prusia as modified discloses the limitations of claim 17 as shown above, and further discloses wherein the graspable member (22) is a loop that is an extension of the cord (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19: Prusia as modified discloses the limitations of claim 17 as shown above, and further discloses wherein the graspable member (22) is a loop that is an extension of the cord and wherein the loop is positionable around the waist or other body part of a handler so that the pet leash system can be secured in a hands free manner (Fig. 19 shows handle being positioned around a post which would meet this limitation).
Regarding claim 20: Prusia as modified discloses the limitations of claim 17 as shown above, and further discloses wherein the accessory attachment mechanism comprises a plurality of attachment members (36), wherein the plurality of attachment members are spaced along the body of the cord (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 22: Prusia as modified discloses the limitations of claim 17 as shown above, and further discloses wherein the accessory attachment mechanism (36) comprises a plurality of attachment members (36), wherein two of the plurality of attachment members are connectable to one another (these apertures could be connected to each other, therefore teaching the limitation)
Regarding claim 23: Prusia discloses the limitations of claim 17 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the accessory attachment mechanism comprises a plurality of attachment members (36), wherein two of the plurality of attachment members are connectable to one another (apertures 36 could be connected together).
Prusia fails to teach a connector.
However Arnold teaches a connector (Col 5 lines 3-32 describe karabiner, hook, buckles).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the apertures as disclosed by Prusia with the connector as taught by Arnold with a reasonable expectation of success because providing a connector would achieve the predictable result of allowing a user to either modify the size of the leash or attach accessories onto the leash.
Regarding claim 24: Prusia discloses the limitations of claim 17 as shown above.
Prusia fails to teach wherein the accessory attachment mechanism comprises a plurality of attachment members, wherein the attachment members comprise one or more of an aperture, a hook, a magnet, a snap, a button, and a hook and loop fastener.
However, Arnold teaches wherein the accessory attachment mechanism (200,202) comprises a plurality of attachment members, wherein the attachment members comprise one or more of an aperture, a hook, a magnet, a snap, a button, and a hook and loop fastener (Col 5 lines 3-32 describe karabiner, hook, buckles, or other connection means).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the apertures as disclosed by Prusia with the connector as taught by Arnold with a reasonable expectation of success because providing a connector would achieve the predictable result of allowing a user to attach accessories onto the leash and decrease the amount they have to personally carry.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prusia and Arnold as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Shiraki (US 6675742 B1).
Regarding claim 21: Prusia as modified discloses the limitations of claim 17 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the accessory attachment mechanism comprises (36) a plurality of attachment members (36), wherein the plurality of attachment members comprises one or more attachment members along the body of the cord (Fig. 1).
Prusia fails to teach one or more attachment members on the graspable member.
However, Shiraki teaches one or more attachment members (40) on the graspable member (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the apertures as disclosed by Prusia with the handle apertures as taught by Shiraki with a reasonable expectation of success because providing apertures on the handle would allow a user to either size the handle as appropriate for the desired size of the user or provide means of attachment for accessories.
Claims 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prusia and Arnold as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Gish (US 6273029 B1).
Regarding claim 25: Prusia discloses the limitations of claim 17 as shown above.
Prusia fails to teach wherein the pet leash system is a multi-pet leash system adapted to attach to multiple pets.
However, Gish teaches wherein the pet leash system is a multi-pet leash system adapted to attach to multiple pets (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the leash as disclosed by Prusia with the multiple leashes as taught by Gish with a reasonable expectation of success because providing means for multiple leashes to be attached would achieve the predictable result of allowing multiple animals to be walked simultaneously.
Regarding claim 26: Prusia discloses the limitations of claim 17 as shown above.
Prusia fails to teach wherein the pet leash system is a multi-pet leash system adapted to attach to multiple pets, wherein the cord is connected to a ring, and wherein multiple pet leashes can be connected to the ring.
However, Gish teaches wherein the pet leash system is a multi-pet leash system adapted to attach to multiple pets (Fig. 1), wherein the cord is connected to a ring, and wherein multiple pet leashes can be connected to the ring (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the leash as disclosed by Prusia with the multiple leashes as taught by Gish with a reasonable expectation of success because providing means for multiple leashes to be attached would achieve the predictable result of allowing multiple animals to be walked simultaneously.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art of Prusia does not disclose the limitations of claim 1 as it does not teach an accessory mechanism comprising one or more apertures. The Office respectfully disagrees as Prusia contains apertures (36) which discloses this limitation.
Applicant argues that the prior art of Prusia is silent to an accessory. The Office has changed the ground of rejection from a 35 USC 102 to a 35 USC 103 in view of the Arnold reference, wherein the Arnold reference teaches the use of attachment mechanisms within the holes to attach accessories as seen in Column 5 lines 3-32.
Applicant argues that the prior art of Arnold does not anticipate the limitations of claim 27. The Office respectfully disagrees as some of the accessory options described in the claim are also discussed in the prior art of Arnold, see Column 5 lines 3-32.
Applicant argues that there would be no reason or motivation to combine the teachings of Shiraki and Prusia. The Office respectfully disagrees as additional apertures would be beneficial for the purpose of either adding accessories or limiting the size of the leash/handle.
Applicant argues there is no motivation or reason to combine the teachings of Arnold And Prusia. The Office respectfully disagrees, as one of ordinary skill in the art would view the art of Arnold and see how it’s openings were used to attach accessories, and would be motivated to attach accessories to the unused apertures of Prusia in order to decrease the amount of items they would need to carry on their persons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cited art not relied upon are within applicant’s related field of leashes or leads with apertures, which could be used to carry accessories.
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 EDGAR REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-5318. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-6 EST.
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 at 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.
/E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642