DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This action is in response to the application 19/042,864 filed 1/31/2025 which claims benefit of 63/627,772 1/31/2024.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not 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 12 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.
For purposes of examination on the merits, the claims, as best understood, are examined in the Action below.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the dog" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As best understood, since claim 12 depends on claim 9, it is believed “canine” should be used in place of “dog.”
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lytle, JR (US 8,955,464 B2)(hereinafter Lytle) in view of Osten (US 2012/0187169 A1)(hereinafter Osten) and Clayton (US 3,074,378)(hereinafter Clayton).
RE Claim 1: Lytle discloses a bicycle handlebar retractable leash attachment system, comprising:
a bicycle handle bar (handle of bike as seen in Fig 1);
a retractable leash (3);
a bicycle handlebar mount (2 is attached to bicycle as seen in Fig 1).
Lytle does not explicitly teach said bicycle handlebar mount being centrally located between bicycle handlebar handles; said handlebar mount exhibiting a receiving area or housing for a leash receptacle wherein the receiving area or housing comprises a semi-circular U-shaped flange with an inter-beveled shape located in the center of the mount; a beveled receiving disk that attaches to the bottom surface of the leash receptacle, wherein said beveled disk is placed in the receiving area or housing for the leash receptacle; and said leash receptacle holding the retractable leash in the mount.
However, Osten teaches an accessory holder for a bicycle (analogous art).
Osten further teaches said bicycle handlebar mount being centrally located between bicycle handlebar handles (Fig 2); said handlebar mount exhibiting a receiving area (8) or housing for a leash receptacle wherein the receiving area or housing comprises a semi-circular U-shaped flange with an inter-beveled shape located in the center of the mount (Fig 3); a beveled receiving disk that attaches to the bottom surface of the leash receptacle (Fig 3), wherein said beveled disk is placed in the receiving area or housing for the leash receptacle (Fig 3); and said leash receptacle holding the retractable leash in the mount (for accessories).
Therefore, 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 device of Lytle in view of Osten such that said bicycle handlebar mount being centrally located between bicycle handlebar handles; said handlebar mount exhibiting a receiving area or housing for a leash receptacle wherein the receiving area or housing comprises a semi-circular U-shaped flange with an inter-beveled shape located in the center of the mount; a beveled receiving disk that attaches to the bottom surface of the leash receptacle, wherein said beveled disk is placed in the receiving area or housing for the leash receptacle; and said leash receptacle holding the retractable leash in the mount as taught by Osten for the advantages of securing accessories and devices to a bicycle (para 0004, 0018).
Lytle as modified does not explicitly teach a quick release latch pin.
However, Clayton teaches a dog leash (analogous art) with a quick release latch pin (at least col 1, ln 30-40).
Therefore, 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 device of Lytle as modified in view of Clayton by incorporating a quick release latch pin as taught by Clayton for the advantages of improved safety.
RE Claim 2: Lytle as modified discloses the system of claim 1. Osten further discloses wherein the mount straddles the bicycle handlebar and is placed on top of the handlebar (Fig 3).
RE Claim 3: Lytle as modified discloses the system of claim 2. Osten further discloses wherein the mount comprises a top surface that extends downwards from each of two ends to form 2 (two) U-shaped mount clamps to securely fasten the system to the underneath of the handlebar with fasteners, wherein said fasteners comprises adjustable metal clamps (Figs 2-3).
RE Claim 6: Lytle as modified discloses the system of claim 1. Osten further discloses wherein the receiving disk comprises a broad top section, narrower neck and a base, wherein small section of outer rim of top section rests on the surface of the mount (Fig 3), while the neck and base are inserted in the receiving area of the mount (98 in Fig 3).
RE Claim 7: Lytle as modified discloses the system of claim 6. Osten further discloses wherein the receiving disk further comprises a centralized ring disposed in in the center of the receiving area abutted by a plurality of lattices or supports (98) extending outward from the ring and touching the inner surface of the receiving disk, plurality of points of attachments, or a combination thereof (Fig 3).
RE Claim 8: Lytle as modified discloses the system of claim 1, and Lytle further discloses wherein the leash receptacle comprises a retractable leash device or system (retractable leash 3), said retractable device or system being a spring-loaded feed/break and release mechanism for attachment to a canine (attaches to dog as seen in Fig 1)(also see col 3, ln 50-60).
RE Claim 9: Lytle as modified discloses the system of claim 8, and Lytle further discloses wherein the leash receptacle further comprises a control that can grip, release and break the length of the leash, a hook to connect to collar of the canine or both (col 3, ln 50-60).
RE Claim 10: Lytle as modified discloses the system of claim 8, and Osten further discloses wherein the leash receptacle is made of hard plastic, semi-plastic, metal, a composite material, or a combination thereof (para 0023).
RE Claim 11: Lytle as modified discloses the system of claim 8, and Osten further discloses wherein the mount is made of injection molded plastic, thermoforming plastics, extrusion blow molding, compression molding, or a combination thereof, said plastic further comprising additives to improve durability, workability, color or appearance of the system (para 0023).
RE product-by-process claims, please see MPEP 2113 (1) which states: "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
RE Claim 12 (as best understood): Lytle discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the leash receptacle is placed with the hook for the collar facing in front of the handlebar mount to enable forward motion of the dog so that the dog precedes the bicycle and the control for the leash proximate to the bicycle rider to enable ergonomic and safe operation of said system (Lytle Fig 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-19 allowed. Claims 4-5 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not disclose, either alone or in combination, the details of
wherein the quick release latch pin is inserted through at least one orifice in the receiving area or housing in the mount and passes through the receiving disk (claim 4);
attaching the beveled disk to the bottom surface of the leash receptacle; placing the beveled disk attached to the leash receptacle in the receiving area or housing in the mount such that a hook for a canine collar is front-facing and a control for the retractable leash is proximate to the bicycle rider; fastening the leash receptacle to the handlebars by inserting the quick release latch pin through at least one orifice in the receiving area or housing in the mount and the receiving disk (claim 13 and dependents), along with the remaining limitations of the claim.
This statement is not intended to necessarily state all the reasons for allowance or all the details why the claims are allowed and has not been written to specifically or impliedly state that all the reasons for allowance are set forth (MPEP 1302.14).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
These documents present alternative designs similar in scope which illustrate relevant features in comparison to the Applicant’s submission. The cited prior art include various leash systems and attachment mechanisms.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA E GRABER whose telephone number is (571)272-4640. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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, Timothy D Collins can be reached on 571-272-6886. 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.
/MARIA E GRABER/Examiner, Art Unit 3644