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 submitted 1/7/2025 are acknowledged and acceptable.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS document submitted 1/7/2025 is acknowledged and has been considered.
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.
Claim 15 is 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. In claim 15, the at least one retention cord is claimed to be configurable with a variety of different bands, each band having a different color. The “variety of different bands” with “different colors” is not explicitly claimed. Rather, the at least one retention cord is capable of being reconfigurable with bands of different colors.
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) 1-4, 7-10, 13, 15-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Van Der Linden et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0028742).
In regards to claim 1, Van Der Linden et al (henceforth referred to as Van Der Linden) disclose a scent luring apparatus. Van Der Linden teaches a scent pod and a launching device (scent pellet, item 99), comprising:
a scent pod (item 99);
a scented material in the scent pod (item 95); and
a scent delivery mechanism to launch the scent pod to a location remote from the
scent delivery mechanism, wherein the scent pod is configured to at least partially open upon impact to release at least some of the scented material from the scent pod. Figure 1 of Van Der Linden illustrates a scent pod launching device (sling shot) and the pellets of Van Der Linden may break upon impact or remain secure and release scent through opening.
In regards to claim 2, Van Der Linden discloses that the scent pod has a casing with a filling. Van Der Linden teaches “spherical shell filled with a fluid” (par. 31).
In regards to claim 3, Van Der Linden discloses that the casing is a gelatin (par. 31).
In regards to claim 4, Van Der Linden discloses that the filling is at least in part a scented material that retains scent and disperses the scent when the scented material is released from the scent pod upon opening the outer shell. The Van Der Linden invention is a scent filled gelatin sphere that releases (par. 31).
In regards to claim 7, Van Der Linden discloses that the scent delivery mechanism is at least one of an air gun, a bow and arrow, a crossbow and bolt, and a slingshot. Van Der Linden teaches a slingshot.
In regards to claim 8, Van Der Linden discloses that the scent delivery mechanism is a launching device further comprising a handle (item 20 of figure 1), at least one arm attached to the handle (item 40), at least one retention cord attached to the at least one arm (item 60), and a pouch (item 50).
In regards to claim 9, Van Der Linden discloses that the pouch further comprises a base member attached on opposite ends to the at least one retention cord. As illustrated in figure 1, the slingshot includes a pouch that is attached to a “base” with opposite ends attached to retention cords. Note the “yoke” member (item 74).
In regards to claim 10, Van Der Linden discloses at least one pod pocket on the base member of the pouch. The pouch or vessel (item 50) includes a pocket in/on the base yoke to hold a pellet.
In regards to claim 13, Van Der Linden discloses a chamber in the handle for storing the scent pod therein (par. 26).
In regards to claim 15, Van Der Linden discloses that the at least one retention cord is configurable with a variety of different bands, each band having a different color to visually indicate an elasticity of the band. Note that the variety of different bands with different colors is not positively claimed and the Van Der Linden device is capable of functioning in the manner claimed.
In regards to claim 16, Van Der Linden discloses a scent luring apparatus, comprising:
a scent pod (item 99);
a scented material in the scent pod (item 95); and
a launching device to launch the scent pod to a location remote from the scent
delivery mechanism, wherein the scent pod is configured to at least partially open
automatically upon impact to release at least some of the scented material from the scent pod. Figure 1 of Van Der Linden illustrates a scent pod launching device (sling shot) and the pellets of Van Der Linden may break upon impact or remain secure and release scent through opening.
In regards to claim 17, Van Der Linden discloses that the launching device further comprises a handle, a first arm attached between a first side of the handle and to an end of a first retention cord, a second arm attached between a first side of the handle and to an end of a second retention cord. As illustrated in figure 1, the slingshot of Van Der Linden includes a handle (item 20), a first and second arm (items 40) and first and second retention cords (items 60).
In regards to claim 20, Van Der Linden discloses that the scent pod has a gelatin outer shell for a scented material that retains scent and disperses the scent when the scented material is released from the scent pod upon opening the outer shell (par. 31).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Der Linden et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0028742) in view of Walters et al. (U.S. Patent 7,900,620).
In regards to claim 5, Van Der Linden does not explicitly disclose that the scent pod is a polyethylene glycol sphere, or that the scented material is at least one of nontoxic and biodegradable. However, Walters et al (henceforth referred to as Walters) teaches a slingshot projectile fabricated from a polyethylene biodegradable material (col. 3, lines 4-27) and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize any of various materials including a polyethylene glycol biodegradable 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.
Claim(s) 11, 12, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Der Linden et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0028742) in view of Scoggins et al. (U.S. Patent 7,861,700).
In regards to claim 11, Van Der Linden does not disclose that the at least one pod pocket defaults to an open position without tension on the at least one retention cord, and the at least one pod pocket transitioning to a closed position as tension is applied to the at least one retention cord. However, Scoggins et al (henceforth referred to as Scoggins) teaches a slingshot including a “pod” that is in an open position and then transitions to a closed configuration when tension is applied. Note that Scoggins teaches that the inner walls are forced to close around the paintball inside (col. 2, lines 64-67 and col. 3, lines 1-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to incorporate various slingshot pouch configurations in/on the Van Der Linden design including the pod/pouch as taught by Scoggins, to hold the projectile in the pod until release.
In regards to claim 12, Van Der Linden as modified by Scoggins discloses that the at least one pod pocket at least partially encapsulates the scent pod in the closed position. The projectile of the slingshot is almost fully encapsulated when the pod is in the closed position (see figures).
In regards to claim 18, Van Der Linden discloses that the launching device further comprises:
a pouch having a base member attached on a first end to the first retention cord. As shown in figure 1, the Van Der Linden slingshot includes a “pouch” attached to the two retention cords,
and the base member attached on a second end to the second retention cord, the base member of the pouch extending between the first retention cord and the second retention cord. As illustrated in figure 1, the slingshot includes a pouch that is attached to a “base” with opposite ends attached to retention cords. Note the “yoke” member (item 74); and
Van Der Linden does not teach a first pod pocket on the base member of the pouch, and a second pod pocket positioned adjacent to the first pod pocket on the base member of the pouch. However, Scoggins teaches a slingshot with a pouch including two parts adjacent to each other and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to incorporate various slingshot pouch configurations in/on the Van Der Linden design including a pouch with a first and second “pod” as taught by Scoggins, to hold and encapsulate the projectile in the pod until release.
In regards to claim 19, Van Der Linden as modified by Scroggins discloses that the first and second pod pockets are separated from one another when tension in the first and second retention cords is released, and the first pod pocket moving toward the second pod pocket as tension is applied to the first and second retention cords to at least partially encapsulate the scent pod between the first and second pod pockets. Note that Scoggins teaches that the inner walls are forced to close around the paintball inside (col. 2, lines 64-67 and col. 3, lines 1-10).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Der Linden et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0028742) in view of Ellenburg et al. (U.S. Patent 5,894,672).
In regards to claim 14, Van Der Linden does not teach a support structure having at least one support member attached to the handle and at least one brace member attached to the at least one support member, the brace member configured to fit adjacent a forearm of a person when the handle of the launching device is held in a hand of the person. However, this configuration is a common consideration with slingshots and Ellenburg et al (henceforth referred to as Ellenburg) teaches a slingshot that includes an arm brace member (item 24 and 32) including supporting members (see figure 1 of Ellenburg) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide a supporting member as taught by Ellenburg with the slingshot of Van Der Linden, to support the device in use.
Summary/Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN P LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-8968. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 8:30am and 5:00pm on Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Troy Chambers can be reached on 571-272-6874. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/BENJAMIN P LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
Prosecution Insights