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 Interpretation
Examiner notes that Claim 1 recites “a cord sling device” in the preamble. The body of the claim recites that the cord sling device is “configured to be attached to a pole…said body component secured proximal to a top of said pole” is not interpreted to positively recite any structure related to the pole.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Jonsson, U.S. Patent 4,752,054 or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Jonsson ‘054 in view of Sharpe, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0117170.
Regarding Claim 1, Jonsson teaches:
A body component (1’)…having a plurality of holes (31), a plurality of slots (5’, 32), a top
loop fastener (7’) and
a plurality of cord fasteners (2’)…
wherein each of said plurality of cord fastener having a flexible male end (see below).
**Examiner's Note: Examiner notes that the above claim contains the claim language “configured to be attached to a pole”, “wherein said body…plurality of holes”, “for inserting into…plurality of slots…and further wherein…above the ground”, which does not constitute a recitation of positively claimed structural elements, but a recitation of function which the claimed device must be capable. The prior art of Jonsson, is interpreted as capable of these functions. See MPEP 2111.04 [R-3], see Ex Parte Marsham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
PNG
media_image1.png
328
449
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Should Applicant disagree with the above interpretation then Sharpe ‘170 is introduced to teach a cord and tube organizer attached to an IV pole (see Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the Jonsson device in an IV pole application such that the limitations at issue would be satisfied because IV pole application would be a large and desirable market to apply a cord holder such as Jonsson.
Regarding Claim 2, in light of the 102 rejection under Jonsson, this claim appears to be non-limiting because “said pole” is not considered a positive recitation. In light of the alternative 103 interpretation, Sharpe clearly and explicitly teaches an IV pole (see Abstract).
Regarding Claim 3, see drawing selection above which clearly teaches a pair of cord fasteners.
**Examiner's Note: Examiner notes that the above claim contains the claim language “for suspending a…above the ground”, which does not constitute a recitation of positively claimed structural elements, but a recitation of function which the claimed device must be capable. The prior art of Jonsson, is interpreted as capable of these functions. See MPEP 2111.04 [R-3], see Ex Parte Marsham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
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.
Claim(s) 4-5, 8-12 and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jonsson-Sharpe as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Fujinami, U.S. Patent 4,718,147.
The prior art is silent with regard to the limitations of this claim.
Fujinami teaches a loop fastener having a flexible T-shaped male end (see Figs. 1-2, elements 15, 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Jonsson-Sharpe with the teaching of Fujinami that would permit reversible fastening for easy removal and reuse of the device.
Regarding Claim 5, see Jonsson which teaches the cord fasteners being rectilinear having a plurality of ridges along opposite sides of the plurality of cord fasteners (see below).
PNG
media_image2.png
307
488
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 8-9, Jonsson teaches the use “flexible plastic” (Col 1, Lns 44-45) and Sharpe teaches the use of polystyrene which is waterproof (see Sharpe, paragraph [0014]).
Regarding Claim 10, as set forth in the rejection above of Claim 1, Jonsson teaches:
A body component (1’)…having a plurality of holes (31), a plurality of slots (5’, 32), a top
loop fastener (7’) and
a plurality of cord fasteners (2’)…
wherein each of said plurality of cord fastener having a flexible male end (see below).
**Examiner's Note: Examiner notes that the above claim contains the claim language “configured to be attached to a pole”, “wherein said body…plurality of holes”, “for inserting into…plurality of slots…and further wherein…above the ground”, which does not constitute a recitation of positively claimed structural elements, but a recitation of function which the claimed device must be capable. The prior art of Jonsson, is interpreted as capable of these functions. See MPEP 2111.04 [R-3], see Ex Parte Marsham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
PNG
media_image1.png
328
449
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jonsson does not teach the top loop fastener having a flexible T-shaped male end.
Should Applicant disagree with the above interpretation then Sharpe ‘170 is introduced to teach a cord and tube organizer attached to an IV pole (see Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the Jonsson device in an IV pole application such that the limitations at issue would be satisfied because IV pole application would be a large and desirable market to apply a cord holder such as Jonsson.
Fujinami teaches a loop fastener having a flexible T-shaped male end (see Figs. 1-2, elements 15, 16).
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Jonsson-Sharpe with the teaching of Fujinami that would permit reversible fastening for easy removal and reuse of the device.
Regarding Claim 11, see drawing selection above which clearly teaches a pair of cord fasteners.
**Examiner's Note: Examiner notes that the above claim contains the claim language “for suspending a…above the ground”, which does not constitute a recitation of positively claimed structural elements, but a recitation of function which the claimed device must be capable. The prior art of Jonsson, is interpreted as capable of these functions. See MPEP 2111.04 [R-3], see Ex Parte Marsham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding Claim 12, see Jonsson which teaches the cord fasteners being rectilinear having a plurality of ridges along opposite sides of the plurality of cord fasteners (see below).
PNG
media_image2.png
307
488
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 15-16, Jonsson teaches the use “flexible plastic” (Col 1, Lns 44-45) and Sharpe teaches the use of polystyrene which is waterproof (see Sharpe, paragraph [0014]).
Regarding Claim 17, Examiner notes that these method step limitations are considered obvious over the prior art in view of rejections of the structural limitations previously set forth. Although the prior art does not explicitly set forth the method steps as claimed when the method steps essentially set forth the provision and use of an apparatus, as intended by its structure, then such method steps are considered obvious when the structure of the apparatus has been demonstrated as obvious or anticipated by the prior art. See rejection of Claim 10 above.
Regarding Claim 18, Examiner notes that these method step limitations are considered obvious over the prior art in view of rejections of the structural limitations previously set forth. Although the prior art does not explicitly set forth the method steps as claimed when the method steps essentially set forth the provision and use of an apparatus, as intended by its structure, then such method steps are considered obvious when the structure of the apparatus has been demonstrated as obvious or anticipated by the prior art. See rejection of Claim 11 above.
Regarding Claim 19, Examiner notes that these method step limitations are considered obvious over the prior art in view of rejections of the structural limitations previously set forth. Although the prior art does not explicitly set forth the method steps as claimed when the method steps essentially set forth the provision and use of an apparatus, as intended by its structure, then such method steps are considered obvious when the structure of the apparatus has been demonstrated as obvious or anticipated by the prior art. See rejection of Claim 15 above.
Claim(s) 6-7, 13-14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jonsson-Sharpe-Fujinami as applied to claims 1-5 above, and further in view of Minder, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0117897.
Regarding Claims 6 and 13 the prior art is silent with regard to the use of HDPE as the material for the component.
Minder teaches an attachment device comprised of HDPE (see paragraph [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the instant combination comprised of HDPE because HDPE is an affordable material that is ideal for disinfection and therefore appropriate for medical use.
Regarding Claims 7 and 14 the prior art is silent with regard to the use of polypropylene as the material for the component.
Minder teaches an attachment device comprised of polypropylene (see paragraph [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the instant combination comprised of polypropylene because polypropylene is an affordable material that is ideal for disinfection and therefore appropriate for medical use.
Regarding Claim 20, Examiner notes that these method step limitations are considered obvious over the prior art in view of rejections of the structural limitations previously set forth. Although the prior art does not explicitly set forth the method steps as claimed when the method steps essentially set forth the provision and use of an apparatus, as intended by its structure, then such method steps are considered obvious when the structure of the apparatus has been demonstrated as obvious or anticipated by the prior art. See rejection of Claims 7 and 14 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5218. The examiner can normally be reached IFP, Typically M-Th, 8:00-6:00, regular Fr availability.
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 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.
/M.J.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677