DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Status of Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application. This communication is a Non-Final Rejection in response to the Application filed on December 9, 2024.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-8, 11, 12, 14-17, 19 & 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the first point of contact”. To improve clarity, replacement of this limitation with “a first point of contact” is required. Claim 6 is also objected to for being dependent on Claim 3 (also see objection to Claim 6 below).
Claims 4, 7 & 11 further limit features related to the first or at least one point of contact (i.e., a feature of Claim 2), respectively; and appear to be inadvertently presented as dependent on Claim 1. Appropriate correction is required. For purposes of examination, the Office considers Claims 4, 7 & 11 each as dependent on Claim 2. Claim 5 is also objected to for being dependent on Claim 4.
Claim 5 appears to recite “the lever point of contact” and “at least one lever point of contact” (in parent Claim 4) interchangeably. Consistency in terminology and number of lever points of contact is required to improve clarity of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 further limits features related to the first point of contact and second point of contact (i.e., a feature of Claim 3), and appears to be inadvertently presented as dependent on Claim 1. For purposes of examination, the Office considers Claim 6 as dependent on Claim 3.
Claim 6 recites “at least one of the first point of contact is arranged in a first region of the sleeve”; which appears to encompass more than one first points of contact, whereas parent Claim 3 recites a “first point of contact”. Consistency in terminology and the number of first points of contact is required to improve clarity.
Further, Claim 3 does not necessarily require both the first and second points of contact due to the recitation of “first point of contact or a second point of contact” (emphasis added). As such, to improve clarity, it is recommended that Claim 6 be amended to recite the first and second points of contact as necessarily required.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 appears to have a typographical/grammatical error in lines 2-3 “to provide a force to the sleeve at least one of as a function of gravitation and based on energy stored in the mechanical member”. Further, if the “force” refers to the force as recited in parent Claim 1, language such as “the force” is recommended. Also, as the specification does not necessarily provide details regarding a “function” of gravitation or a force “based on” energy stored, deletion of these phrases is recommended. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 recites “wherein lever”. As the lever is previously recited in parent Claim 1, to improve clarity, replacement of this limitation with “wherein the lever” is required.
Claims 14 & 15 each recite “at least two opposite sides”. Opposites are generally a pair and, as such, an unlimited number of opposite sides as instantly recited is unclear.
Also, Claim 15 appears to further limit the tip of Claim 13. As such, correction of the dependency is required. For purposes of examination, the Office considers Claim 15 as dependent on Claim 13.
Claim 16 appears to further limit the recess of Claim 14. As such, correction of the dependency is required. For purposes of examination, the Office considers Claim 16 as dependent on Claim 14.
Also, Claim 16 recites “the form”. To improve clarity, replacement of this limitation with “a form” is required.
Appropriate correction is required. Claim 16 is also objected to for being dependent on Claim 14.
Claim 17 recites “at least one of conical and tapered”. It appears the intent is to recite “at least one of conical or tapered”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 recites “the open”. To improve clarity, replacement of this limitation with “the open position” is recommended. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 appears to have a typographical/grammatical error in line 2 “is at least one of made of an aluminum alloy or anodized”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-9 & 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogelja (WO 2016/164971).
With respect to Claim 1, Rogelja discloses a carabiner, comprising: a frame including an engagement end and a pivoting end therebetween defining an opening; a lever including a top end and a lever connection element, the lever pivotably coupled to the pivoting end and configured to be pivoted between an open and a closed position for the engagement end and top end to detachably engage (Rogelja: Sections [0009]-[0011] & [0024]-[0031]; Figures 4-6; as a non-limiting example: a carabiner “110” has a C-shaped frame with two ends and an opening; a lever “120” with a top end “122” with a threaded connection element and a pivotably coupled end “124” configured to be pivoted as instantly claimed); a sleeve mounted movably on the lever and having a sleeve connection element corresponding to the lever connection element, wherein said connection elements are configured to move the sleeve along the lever sectionally between a first position and a second position, and a mechanical member configured for applying a force to the sleeve for avoiding an involuntary movement of the sleeve, wherein the sleeve is configured for preventing a pivoting movement of the lever around the pivoting end (Rogelja: Sections [0009]-[0011] & [0024]-[0031]; Figures 4-6; as a non-limiting example: a movably mounted sleeve “112” with a threaded connection element configured as respectively claimed; a mechanical member “130” configured as instantly claimed).
The reference further teaches one or more embodiments which appear to depict a position with disengaged connection elements (Rogelja: Figure 6, where the threaded connection elements are not engaged). As such, although the reference fails to explicitly disclose wherein “said connection elements are disengaged in the second position” in combination with the above features, in a single embodiment, as instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the above connection elements to disengage as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to yield predictable results in opening and closing the carabiner.
With respect to Claim 2, Rogelja teaches the carabiner as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further discloses “…wherein the sleeve has at least one point of contact, of which a first point of contact is configured to bear against the mechanical member” (Rogelja: Sections [0024]-[0031]; Figures 4-6; as non-limiting examples: internal flange or base of the sleeve).
With respect to Claim 3-7, Rogelja teaches the carabiner as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further discloses a point(s) of contact as respectively claimed (Rogelja: Sections [0024]-[0031]; Figures 4-6); wherein as a non-limiting example, any point along the threaded connections of the lever and/or sleeve is considered a point(s) of contact configured/formed/arranged as respectively and broadly claimed. To the extent there is any difference between this feature as disclosed by Rogelja and this feature as respectively claimed, the difference is considered minor and obvious to one of ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With respect to Claim 8, Rogelja teaches the carabiner as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further discloses “…wherein the mechanical member is configured to provide a force to the sleeve at least one of as a function of gravitation and based on energy stored in the mechanical member” (Rogelja: Sections [0024]-[0031]; Figures 4-6); wherein as a non-limiting example, a spring is considered a mechanical member configured as instantly and broadly claimed. To the extent there is any difference between this feature as disclosed by Rogelja and this feature as instantly claimed, the difference is considered minor and obvious to one of ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With respect to Claim 9, Rogelja teaches the carabiner as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further discloses “…wherein the mechanical member is integrated in the sleeve” (Rogelja: Sections [0024]-[0031]; Figures 4-6).
With respect to Claim 11, Rogelja teaches the carabiner as provided above with respect to Claim 2, and further discloses “…wherein the sleeve has a ring element to form the at least one point of contact” (Rogelja: Sections [0024]-[0031]; Figures 4-6); wherein as a non-limiting example, an internal flange of the sleeve is considered a ring element as instantly and broadly claimed. To the extent there is any difference between this feature as disclosed by Rogelja and this feature as instantly claimed, the difference is considered minor and obvious to one of ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With respect to Claim 12, Rogelja teaches the carabiner as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further discloses “…wherein lever has a shoulder arranged between the lever connection element and the top end or arranged between the lever connection element and the pivoting end, and wherein the mechanical member is configured to bear against the shoulder” (Rogelja: Figure 6).
With respect to Claim 13, Rogelja teaches the carabiner as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further discloses “…wherein the engagement end has at least one of a tapered tip or a chamfered tip” (Rogelja: Sections [0024]-[0031]; Figures 4-6).
With respect to Claim 14, Rogelja teaches the carabiner as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further discloses “…wherein the top end has a recess and is configured to surround the engagement end from at least two opposite sides in the closed position” (Rogelja: Sections [0024]-[0031]; Figures 4-6).
With respect to Claim 15, Rogelja teaches the carabiner as provided above with respect to Claim 13, and further discloses “…wherein the top end is configured to surround the tip from at least two opposite sides in the closed position” (Rogelja: Sections [0024]-[0031]; Figures 4-6).
With respect to Claim 16, Rogelja teaches the carabiner as provided above with respect to Claim 14, and further discloses “…wherein the recess is at least one of tapered or chamfered corresponding to the form of the engagement end” (Rogelja: Sections [0024]-[0031]; Figures 4-6).
With respect to Claim 17, Rogelja teaches the carabiner as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further discloses “…wherein the sleeve has an at least one of conical and tapered inner surface and is configured for surrounding the engagement end” (Rogelja: Sections [0024]-[0031]; Figures 4-6).
With respect to Claim 18, Rogelja teaches the carabiner as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further discloses “…wherein the sleeve has a rippling on its outside” (Rogelja: Figure 4).
With respect to Claim 19, Rogelja teaches the carabiner as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further teaches wherein the gate/lever of a carabiner is generally spring loaded to a closed position (Rogelja: Section [0003]). As such, although the reference fails to explicitly disclose “wherein the lever is spring-loaded relative to the frame to automatically pivot from the open towards the closed position” in combination with the above features, in a single embodiment, as instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the above carabiner with a spring loaded lever as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to yield predictable results in opening and closing the carabiner.
Claims 10 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogelja (WO 2016/164971), in view of Thompson (US 2006/0137151).
With respect to Claim 10, Rogelja teaches the carabiner as provided above with respect to Claim 9, and further teaches wherein one or more elements of the carabiner are made of metal (Rogelja: Sections [0003] & [0017]). The reference, however, fails to explicitly disclose “wherein the sleeve and the mechanical member is provided as a plastic assembly” as instantly claimed.
Thompson teaches carabiners therein, wherein a sleeve formed from plastic or metal is employed to reinforce and strengthen the carabiner (Thompson: Sections [0003], [0010] & [0040]). As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Rogelja with the aforementioned teachings of Thompson to employ a plastic assembly, such as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, to reinforce and strengthen the carabiner. (Thompson: Sections [0003], [0010] & [0040]).
With respect to Claim 20, Rogelja teaches the carabiner as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further teaches wherein one or more elements of the carabiner are made of metal (Rogelja: Sections [0003] & [0017]). The reference, however, fails to explicitly disclose the metal as “aluminum alloy or anodized” as instantly claimed.
Thompson teaches carabiners therein, wherein it is taught to be known in the art to form one or more carabiner elements with aluminum alloys for strength (Thompson: Sections [0003], [0010] & [0033]). As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Rogelja with the aforementioned teachings of Thompson to employ a carabiner element made of aluminum alloy, such as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, for carabiner strength. (Thompson: Sections [0003], [0010] & [0033]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Petzl et al. (US 2006/0219479) discloses a carabiner comprising a frame, lever, sleeve and mechanical member.
Chang (US 2018/0017095) discloses a safety hook comprising a frame, lever, sleeve and mechanical member.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANURADHA AHUJA whose telephone number is (571)272-3067. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday.
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, Doug Hutton can be reached at 571-272-4137. 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.
/ANURADHA AHUJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
Prosecution Insights