DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a final rejection on the merits.
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 02/25/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-4, 6, and 8-9 have been amended, Claims 2 and 7 have been canceled, Claims 5 and 10 remain as previously presented. Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings, the Specification, and the Claims have overcome each and every objection set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 08/25/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1 Line 7, the phrase “the (GPS) tracking device” should read “the GPS tracking device” to remove the unnecessary parenthesis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 3-6, and 8-10 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.
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 recites the limitation “the collar portion” in Line 11 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommends amending Line 11 of the claim “a collar portion” and Line 25 of the claim to read “the collar portion”.
In addition, Claim 1 is indefinite because there are several duplicated limitations. For example, it is unclear if the “buckle mechanism” in Line 12 of the claim is the same as the “buckle mechanism” in Line 13 of the claim. It is also unclear if the “flap” in Line 9 of the claim is the same as the “flap” in Line 12 of the claim.
Regarding Claim 6, Claim 6 recites the limitation “the collar portion” in Line 15 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommends amending Line 11 of the claim “a collar portion” and Line 27 of the claim to read “the collar portion”.
In addition, Claim 6 is indefinite because there are several duplicated limitations. For example, it is unclear if the “buckle mechanism” in Line 10 of the claim is the same as the “buckle mechanism” in Line 17 of the claim. It is also unclear if the “flap” in Line 9 of the claim is the same as the “flap” in Line 17 of the claim.
Claims 3-5 and 8-10 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramirez (US 20110290199 A1) in view of Taylor (US 20240298610 A1), Pope et al. (US 6314915 B1), Park (KR 20110009674 U), and Dost et al. (US 6637367 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Ramirez teaches a pet harness (shown in Figs. 2A-2B) comprising: a central spine (Fig. 2B shows that the pet harness comprises a central spine where D-ring 24 is centered.); the central spine further comprising:
A waistband portion extending from a lower end of the central spine in two distal directions (Fig. 2B and ¶15 shows/states that the central spine comprises a waistband portion that extends from the lower end, extends into two distal directions, and comprises Velcro mechanisms 262,263.), the waistband portion further comprising:
A hook and loop fastener mechanism (262, 263), and
A waistband buckle mechanism (23), the waistband buckle mechanism comprising:
A buckle member (221; Fig. 2B shows that a buckle mechanism 23 comprises a first buckle member 221.), and
a receiver (222; Fig. 2B shows that a buckle mechanism 23 comprises a first receiver 222.);
A collar portion extending from an upper end of the central spine in two distal directions (Fig. 2B and ¶16 shows/states that the central spine comprises a collar portion that extends from the upper end, extends into two distal directions, and comprises Velcro mechanisms 260,261.), the collar portion further comprising:
A collar portion buckle mechanism (22), the collar portion buckle mechanism comprising:
A buckle member (221; shows that a buckle mechanism 22 comprises a second buckle member 221.), and
A receiver (222; Fig. 2B shows that a buckle mechanism 22 comprises a second receiver 222.); and
A D-ring member (24),
Wherein the pet harness is configured to adjust to a size of a pet and secures the pet in the pet harness safely and comfortably (Stated ¶6; The harness is capable of adjusting to the size of the pet wearing the harness and therefore securing the pet safely and comfortably in the harness.).
However, the system of Ramirez fails to explicitly state that the D-ring member is located at the lower end of the central spine, and that the central spine further comprises a housing for a global positioning system (GPS) tracking device, the housing further comprising:
A casing,
A pouch for the GPS tracking device created in the casing,
A flap,
Wherein the housing is located at an upper portion of the central spine, at the collar portion, and is secured with a buckle mechanism connected to a flap of the housing; and
A buckle mechanism, the buckle mechanism comprising:
A buckle member, and
A receiver member.
Taylor teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract states that the invention is drawn to a pet harness.), the system of Taylor teaches a pet harness (10) comprising a central spine (shown in Fig. 1; Harness 10 comprises an upper panel 11 which includes a central spine that includes handle 20.), wherein a D-ring member (18) is located at the lower end of the central spine (Fig. 1 shows that D-ring 18 is located at a lower end of the central spine of harness 10.) and wherein the central spine comprises a housing (19) for a GPS tracking device (Fig. 1 and ¶25 show/state that housing 19 is provided on an upper end of the central spine of harness 10 and that housing 19 receives and stores a GPS locator device.), the housing comprising a pouch for the GPS tracking device (Fig. 1 and ¶25 show/state that housing 19 is a pouch for the GPS locator device.), wherein the housing is located at an upper portion of the central spine (see Fig. 3; The housing 19 is located at an upper portion of the central spine.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ramirez to have the D-ring member be located at the lower end of the central spine as taught by Taylor with reasonable expectation of success to improve comfort and reduce the risk of tangling, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ramirez to have the central spine comprise a housing for a GPS tracking device, the housing further comprising a pouch for the GPS tracking device, wherein the housing is located at an upper portion of the central spine as taught by Taylor with reasonable expectation of success to allow the user to locate their pet in case the pet becomes lost (Taylor, ¶25).
Pope teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract states that the invention is drawn to a pet harness.), the system of Pope teaches a pet harness (shown in Fig. 1A) comprising a housing (200) that is removably attached to the central spine of the harness (See Fig. 1A and Column 2 Lines 5-10), wherein the housing (200) is located at the collar portion (120; shown in Fig. 1A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ramirez as modified by Taylor to have the housing be removably attached to the central spine of the harness, wherein the housing is located at the collar portion as taught by Pope with reasonable expectation of success to provide a multi-purpose container which the animal can carry independently (Pope, Column 1 Lines 50-55).
Park teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract states that the invention is drawn to a pet harness.), the system of Park teaches a pet harness (1) comprises a housing comprising a casing and a flap (both shown in Figs. 1-2), wherein the housing is secured with a mechanism connected to a flap of the housing (see Figs. 1-2; Housing 10 is secured with a button mechanism connected to a flap of the housing 10.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ramirez as modified by Taylor and Pope to have the housing comprise a casing and a flap wherein the housing is secured with a mechanism connected to a flap of the housing as taught by Park with reasonable expectation of success to provide superior retention.
The system of Ramirez as modified by Taylor, Pope, and Park teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the housing is secured with a buckle mechanism, the buckle mechanism comprising a buckle member and a receiver member. Dost teaches a buckle mechanism (1014), the buckle mechanism comprising a buckle member (700), and a receiver member (704). It would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was filed to substitute the button mechanism of the system of Ramirez as modified by Taylor, Pope, and Park with the buckle mechanism of Dost to provide a secure and adjustable mechanism, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Regarding Claim 3, the system of Ramirez as modified by Taylor, Pope, Park, and Dost, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
The system of Ramirez as modified by Taylor, Pope, Park, and Dost further teaches (references to Taylor) that the D-ring member (18) is attached to the pet harness at a lower portion of the central spine in a center of the waistband portion (Fig. 1 shows that D-ring member 18 is attached to the pet harness 10 at a lower portion of the central spine. Looking at Fig. 2B of Ramirez, this means that due to the modification of Taylor, d-ring member 24 would be located in a center of the waistband portion.), and is configured to receive a leash or tether (Stated in ¶24; D-ring 18 is capable of receiving a leash.).
The system of Ramirez as modified by Taylor, Pope, Park, and Dost teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the D-ring is sewn to the pet harness. It would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was filed to have the D-ring of the system of Ramirez as modified by Taylor, Pope, Park, and Dost be sewn to the pet harness to provide a strong and lasting attachment that withstands washing and wear, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Regarding Claim 5, the system of Ramirez as modified by Taylor, Pope, Park, and Dost, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
The system of Ramirez as modified by Taylor, Pope, Park, and Dost teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the housing is comprised of a quantity of polyvinyl chloride ("PVC"). Pope teaches a harness (shown in Fig. 1A) comprising a housing (200) comprising a quantity of PVC (stated in Column 4 Lines 35-40). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have the housing of the system of Ramirez as modified by Taylor, Pope, Park, and Dost be comprised of a quantity of PVC as taught by Pope with reasonable expectation of success to provide a material that is resistant to breakage (Pope, Column 4 Lines 35-40), 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 obviousness. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding Claim 6, Ramirez teaches a pet harness (shown in Figs. 2A-2B) comprising: a central spine (Fig. 2B shows that the pet harness comprises a central spine where D-ring 24 is centered.); the central spine further comprising:
A waistband portion extending from a lower end of the central spine in two distal directions (Fig. 2B and ¶15 shows/states that the central spine comprises a waistband portion that extends from the lower end, extends into two distal directions, and comprises Velcro mechanisms 262,263.), the waistband portion further comprising:
A hook and loop fastener mechanism (262, 263), and
A waistband buckle mechanism (23), the waistband buckle mechanism comprising:
A buckle member (221; Fig. 2B shows that a buckle mechanism 23 comprises a first buckle member 221.), and
a receiver (222; Fig. 2B shows that a buckle mechanism 23 comprises a first receiver 222.);
A collar portion extending from an upper end of the central spine in two distal directions (Fig. 2B and ¶16 shows/states that the central spine comprises a collar portion that extends from the upper end, extends into two distal directions, and comprises Velcro mechanisms 260, 261.), the collar portion further comprising:
A collar portion buckle mechanism (22), the collar portion buckle mechanism comprising:
A buckle member (221; shows that a buckle mechanism 22 comprises a second buckle member 221.), and
A receiver (222; Fig. 2B shows that a buckle mechanism 22 comprises a second receiver 222.); and
A D-ring member (24),
Wherein the pet harness is configured to adjust to a size of a pet and secures the pet in the pet harness (Stated ¶6; The harness is capable of adjusting to the size of the pet wearing the harness and therefore securing the pet safely and comfortably in the harness.).
However, the system of Ramirez fails to explicitly state that the D-ring member is located at the lower end of the central spine, and that the central spine further comprises a housing for a global positioning system (GPS) tracking device, the housing further comprising:
A GPS tracking device;
A casing,
A pouch for the GPS tracking device created in the casing,
A flap, and
A buckle mechanism, the buckle mechanism comprising:
A buckle member, and
A receiver member.
Wherein the housing is located at an upper portion of the central spine, at the collar portion, and is configured as a casing for the GPS tracking device and is secured with a buckle mechanism connected to a flap of the housing.
Taylor teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract states that the invention is drawn to a pet harness.), the system of Taylor teaches a pet harness (10) comprising a central spine (shown in Fig. 1; Harness 10 comprises an upper panel 11 which includes a central spine that includes handle 20.), wherein a D-ring member (18) is located at the lower end of the central spine (Fig. 1 shows that D-ring 18 is located at a lower end of the central spine of harness 10.) and wherein the central spine comprises a housing (19) for a GPS tracking device (Fig. 1 and ¶25 show/state that housing 19 is provided on an upper end of the central spine of harness 10 and that housing 19 receives and stores a GPS locator device.), the housing comprising a pouch for the GPS tracking device (Fig. 1 and ¶25 show/state that housing 19 is a pouch for the GPS locator device.), wherein the housing is located at an upper portion of the central spine (see Fig. 3; The housing 19 is located at an upper portion of the central spine.) and is configured as a casing for the GPS tracking device (Fig. 1 and ¶25 show/state that housing 19 receives and stores a GPS locator device.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ramirez to have the D-ring member be located at the lower end of the central spine as taught by Taylor with reasonable expectation of success to improve comfort and reduce the risk of tangling, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ramirez to have the central spine comprise a housing for a GPS tracking device, the housing further comprising a pouch for the GPS tracking device, wherein the housing is located at an upper portion of the central spine and is configured as a casing for the GPS tracking device as taught by Taylor with reasonable expectation of success to allow the user to locate their pet in case the pet becomes lost (Taylor, ¶25).
Pope teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract states that the invention is drawn to a pet harness.), the system of Pope teaches a pet harness (shown in Fig. 1A) comprising a housing (200) that is located at the collar portion (120; shown in Fig. 1A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ramirez as modified by Taylor to have the housing be located at the collar portion as taught by Pope with reasonable expectation of success to provide a multi-purpose container which the animal can carry independently (Pope, Column 1 Lines 50-55).
Park teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract states that the invention is drawn to a pet harness.), the system of Park teaches a pet harness (1) comprises a housing comprising a casing and a flap (both shown in Figs. 1-2), wherein the housing is secured with a mechanism connected to a flap of the housing (see Figs. 1-2; Housing 10 is secured with a button mechanism connected to a flap of the housing 10.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ramirez as modified by Taylor and Pope to have the housing comprise a casing and a flap wherein the housing is secured with a mechanism connected to a flap of the housing as taught by Park with reasonable expectation of success to provide superior retention.
The system of Ramirez as modified by Taylor, Pope, and Park teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the housing is secured with a buckle mechanism, the buckle mechanism comprising a buckle member and a receiver member. Dost teaches a buckle mechanism (1014), the buckle mechanism comprising a buckle member (700), and a receiver member (704). It would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was filed to substitute the button mechanism of the system of Ramirez as modified by Taylor, Pope, and Park with the buckle mechanism of Dost to provide a secure and adjustable mechanism, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Regarding Claim 8, the system of Ramirez as modified by Taylor, Pope, Park, and Dost, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 6.
The system of Ramirez as modified by Taylor, Pope, Park, and Dost further teaches (references to Taylor) that the D-ring member (18) is attached to the pet harness at a lower portion of the central spine in a center of the waistband portion (Fig. 1 shows that D-ring member 18 is attached to the pet harness 10 at a lower portion of the central spine. Looking at Fig. 2B of Ramirez, this means that due to the modification of Taylor, d-ring member 24 would be located in a center of the waistband portion.), and is configured to receive a leash or tether (Stated in ¶24; D-ring 18 is capable of receiving a leash.).
The system of Ramirez as modified by Taylor, Pope, Park, and Dost teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the D-ring is sewn to the pet harness. It would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was filed to have the D-ring of the system of Ramirez as modified by Taylor, Pope, Park, and Dost be sewn to the pet harness to provide a strong and lasting attachment that withstands washing and wear, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Regarding Claim 10, the system of Ramirez as modified by Taylor, Pope, Park, and Dost, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 6.
The system of Ramirez as modified by Taylor, Pope, Park, and Dost teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the housing is comprised of a quantity of polyvinyl chloride ("PVC"). Pope teaches a harness (shown in Fig. 1A) comprising a housing (200) comprising a quantity of PVC (stated in Column 4 Lines 35-40). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have the housing of the system of Ramirez as modified by Taylor, Pope, Park, and Dost be comprised of a quantity of PVC as taught by Pope with reasonable expectation of success to provide a material that is resistant to breakage (Pope, Column 4 Lines 35-40), 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 obviousness. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramirez (US 20110290199 A1) as modified by Taylor (US 20240298610 A1), Pope et al. (US 6314915 B1), Park (KR 20110009674 U), and Dost et al. (US 6637367 B1) as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Deluya (US 20190364851 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, the system of Ramirez as modified by Taylor, Pope, Park, and Dost, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
The system of Ramirez as modified by Taylor, Pope, Park, and Dost teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the pet harness is comprised of a breathable mesh fabric. Park further teaches that a pet harness (1) comprised of a breathable mesh fabric (Stated in the Claims and Pg. 3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have the pet harness of the system of Ramirez as modified by Taylor, Pope, Park, and Dost be comprised of a breathable mesh fabric as taught by Park with reasonable expectation of success to keep the pet well-ventilated (Park, Pg. 3), 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 obviousness. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
The system of Ramirez as modified by Taylor, Pope, Park, and Dost fails to explicitly state that the pet harness is comprised of a reflective binding.
Deluya teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract states that the invention is drawn to a dog harness.), the system of Deluya teaches a pet harness (shown in Fig. 1-2) comprised of a reflective binding (100, 102, 104, 106). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ramirez as modified by Taylor, Pope, Park, and Dost to the pet harness be comprised of a reflective binding as taught by Deluya with reasonable expectation of success to make the harness easier to use at night (Deluya, ¶5).
Regarding Claim 9, the system of Ramirez as modified by Taylor, Pope, Park, and Dost, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 6.
The system of Ramirez as modified by Taylor, Pope, Park, and Dost teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the pet harness is comprised of a breathable mesh fabric. Park further teaches that a pet harness (1) comprised of a breathable mesh fabric (Stated in the Claims and Pg. 3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have the pet harness of the system of Ramirez as modified by Taylor, Pope, Park, and Dost be comprised of a breathable mesh fabric as taught by Park with reasonable expectation of success to keep the pet well-ventilated (Park, Pg. 3), 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 obviousness. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
The system of Ramirez as modified by Taylor, Pope, Park, and Dost fails to explicitly state that the pet harness is comprised of a reflective binding.
Deluya teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract states that the invention is drawn to a dog harness.), the system of Deluya teaches a pet harness (shown in Fig. 1-2) comprised of a reflective binding (100, 102, 104, 106). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ramirez as modified by Taylor, Pope, Park, and Dost to the pet harness be comprised of a reflective binding as taught by Deluya with reasonable expectation of success to make the harness easier to use at night (Deluya, ¶5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. However, Applicant’s argument surrounding the Dost reference will be addressed below.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant argues that “Dost does not disclose the casing of the present application, nor would a pet harness comprising the casing of the present application be obvious from the teachings of Dost.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the rejection of claim 1 above, Dost is not relied upon for its teaching of the casing but rather for its teaching of a buckle mechanism.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Friedman (US 7370608 B1) teaches an animal restraining device.
Van Scoyk (US 4879865 A) teaches a saddle blanket with compartments.
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 ANGELICA A ALMEIDA BONNIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0708. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at (571) 272-6891. 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.
/A.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights