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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 22, 2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “sliding buckle” in claim 7 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 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.
Claims 7, 9, and 12 are 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.
Claim 7 recites “a sliding buckle” which is indefinite, because it is unclear from the drawings what a sliding buckle consists of.
Claim 9 recites “a clip” which is indefinite, because it is unclear if Applicant is referring to the same clip set forth in claim 5, or if the Applicant is introducing a new clip.
Claim 12 recites “a handle clip” which is indefinite, because it is unclear if the “handle clip” is different from the “clip” in claim 5, or if they are the same clip. If in fact Applicant is referring to the same clip, then Applicant should use consistent terminology throughout the claims.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Albright (US 2008/0072846 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Albright discloses an integrated retractable leash dog harness device comprising:
a harness body (saddle 14, fig. 1) comprised of:
an adjustable length strap comprised of a fastener (Para. [0018], “the straps 12 have adjustable fasteners in order to accommodate different sized animals”; as shown in fig. 1);
a housing (housing 16, fig. 1) comprised of a spring-loaded reel (Para. [0025], “[t]he spool 32 is centered in the housing and the spring 30 is centered in the spool 32”); and
a leash (cord 34, fig. 2) attached to the reel (fig. 2), the leash comprised of a handle (handle member 36, fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Albright discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the fastener is comprised of a buckle, a snap button, a hook and loop fastener, a magnetic fastener, or a button and opening fastener (see buckle in fig. 1).
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 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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albright in view of Wagner (US 2020/0245592 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Albright discloses the invention in claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the body is comprised of a reflective fabric material.
However, Wagner is in the field of an animal harness (Abstract) and teaches wherein the body is comprised of a reflective fabric material (Para. [0028], “[t]he harness 1, 2 may be made of any flexible material including nylon, polyester, leather, cotton, and wool. The material could also be water-proof or water-resistant. In addition, various other materials could be attached to or integrated with the harness to provide other advantages. For example, a reflective material could be used to provide better visibility at night time”; as shown in 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 modify the body harness of Albright such that it comprised a fabric material as taught by Wagner, in order to provide comfort and support to the animal. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Albright such that the body harness further comprised a reflective material as taught by Wagner in order “to provide better visibility at night time” (Wagner: Para. [0028]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albright as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Phillips (US 6,095,094).
Regarding claim 4, Albright discloses the invention in claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the leash is comprised of a metal or a plastic material.
However, Phillips is in the field of a collar leash (Abstract) and teaches wherein the leash is comprised of a metal or a plastic material (Col. 2, line 54, “the distal end of the metal cable leash”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the leash of Albright such that it is comprised of a metal material as taught by Phillips, since it is known in the art for its extreme durability.
Claim(s) 5-6, 8-9, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albright (US 2008/0072846 A1), in view of Hatcher et al. (US 8,267,050 B1), hereinafter Hatcher.
Regarding claim 5, Albright discloses an integrated retractable leash dog harness device comprising:
a harness body (saddle 14, fig. 1) comprised of:
a primary strap (one of strap 12, as shown in annotated fig. 1 below) comprised of a first securing fastener (see buckle in annotated fig. 1 below) and a first adjustment fastener (as shown in annotated fig. 1 below);
a secondary strap (another one of strap 12, as shown in annotated fig. 1 below) comprised of a second securing fastener (as shown in annotated fig. 1 below) and a second adjustment fastener (as shown in annotated fig. 1 below);
a housing (housing 16, fig. 1) comprised of a spring-loaded reel (Para. [0025], “[t]he spool 32 is centered in the housing and the spring 30 is centered in the spool 32”); and
a leash (cord 34, fig. 2) attached to the reel (fig. 2), the leash comprised of a handle (handle member 36, fig. 2).
However, Albright does not appear to specifically disclose a leash comprised of a clip.
Hatcher is in the field of an adjustable leash (Abstract) and teaches a leash comprised of a clip (carabiner clip 24, as shown in fig. 1 the carabiner clip 24 is affixed proximate the base 14 of the lead 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the leash of Albright such that there was a clip as taught by Hatcher, in order to be “used to attach objects to be transported” (Hatcher: Col. 3, lines 42-43).
PNG
media_image1.png
365
486
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 1: annotated image of Albright’s fig. 1
Regarding claim 6, Albright in view of Hatcher discloses the invention in claim 5, and further discloses wherein the first securing fastener and the second securing fastener are comprised of a buckle, a snap button, a hook and loop fastener, a magnetic fastener, or a button and opening fastener (see buckle in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Albright in view of Hatcher discloses the invention in claim 5, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the leash is comprised of a metal or a plastic material.
However, Phillips is in the field of a collar leash (Abstract) and teaches wherein the leash is comprised of a metal or a plastic material (Col. 2, line 54, “the distal end of the metal cable leash”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the leash of Albright such that it is comprised of a metal material as taught by Phillips, since it is known in the art for its extreme durability.
Regarding claim 9, as best understood in light of the 112b rejection above, Albright in view of Hatcher discloses the invention in claim 5, and further discloses wherein the handle is comprised of an attachment point comprised of a clip (as modified above in claim 5, Hatcher discloses a carabiner clip 24).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood in light of the 112b rejection above, Albright in view of Hatcher discloses the invention in claim 5, and further discloses a handle clip (as modified above in claim 5).
Regarding claim 13, Albright in view of Hatcher discloses the invention in claim 12, and Hatcher further discloses wherein the handle clip is fixedly attached to the leash (Col. 3, lines 40-41, “the device 2 may further comprise a carabiner clip 24 affixed proximate the base 14 of the lead 8”; as shown in fig. 4).
Regarding claim 14, Albright in view of Hatcher discloses the invention in claim 13, and Hatcher further discloses wherein the handle clip is comprised of a receiving point (carabiner clip 24 comprises a clasp closure 58, as shown in fig. 4).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albright in view of Hatcher as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Wagner (US 2020/0245592 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Albright in view of Hatcher discloses the invention in claim 5, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the body is comprised of a nylon, a polyester, a mesh, a leather, a neoprene, a cotton, or a reflective material.
However, Wagner is in the field of an animal harness (Abstract) and teaches wherein the body is comprised of a reflective material (Para. [0028], “[t]he harness 1, 2 may be made of any flexible material including nylon, polyester, leather, cotton, and wool. The material could also be water-proof or water-resistant. In addition, various other materials could be attached to or integrated with the harness to provide other advantages. For example, a reflective material could be used to provide better visibility at night time”; as shown in 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 modify the body harness of Albright such that the body harness further comprised a reflective material as taught by Wagner in order “to provide better visibility at night time” (Wagner: Para. [0028]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albright in view of Hatcher as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Rovang (US 2021/0235669 A1).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood in light of the 112b rejection above, Albright in view of Hatcher discloses the invention in claim 5, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the first adjustment fastener and the second adjustment fastener are comprised of a sliding buckle.
However, Rovang is in the filed of a harness (Abstract) and teaches wherein the adjustment fastener is comprised of sliding buckle (tri-glide buckle 28, 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 modify the first and second adjustment fastener of Albright such that it comprised a sliding buckle as taught by Rovang, since adjustment of the strap can be made through use of the slidable adjustment of tr-glide buckle 28 (Rovang: Para. [0029]).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albright in view of Hatcher as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Deluya (US 2019/0364851 A).
Regarding claim 10, Albright in view of Hatcher discloses the invention in claim 5, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the body is comprised of a pocket.
However, Deluya is in the field of a dog harness (Abstract) and teaches wherein the body is comprised of a pocket (pocket detail, 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 modify the body harness of Albright such that it comprised a pocket, in order to carry dog waste bags (Deluya: Para. [0003]).
Regarding claim 11, Albright in view of Hatcher and Deluya discloses the invention in claim 10, and further discloses wherein the pocket receives a waste bag (as modified above in claim 10).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s invention: See PTO 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEVENA ALEKSIC whose telephone number is (571)272-1659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30am-5:30pm ET.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at (571)272-6909. 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.
/N.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/Christopher D Hutchens/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647