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 .
Claims 1-8 are currently pending.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,279,596 to Akenhead et al. (“Akenhead”).
Claim 1 of Akenhead teaches each and every element of current claim 1, except claim 1 of Akenhead does not explicitly teach a collar. Figure 1B of Akenhead, however, teaches a collar. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of claim 1 of Akenhead by including a collar, as taught by Akenhead, in order to provide various attachment points (back and neck) for leashes and to provide an attachment point for identification tags, licenses, and vaccination tags.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not disclose or teach the combination of the claimed elements of independent claim 1. The instant claim contains allowable subject matter for several of the same reasons stated in the Notice of Allowance issued in parent Application No. 16/916,028. As detailed in the Office Action mailed 08/28/2024 in Application No. 16/916,028, U.S. Patent No. 0785021 to Reid (“Reid”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 6694923 to Fouche (“Fouche”) and U.S. Patent Publication 20150020752 to Zimmerman (“Zimmerman”) teaches many of the features claimed in independent claim 1. However, Reid in view of Fouche and Zimmerman does not disclose or render obvious the claimed interchangeable harness system in which the second layer includes a left side and a right side separated by a gap, the first layer of the cape member contacts the back of the animal, the body portion of the top frame is disposed on top of the first layer, within the gap of the second layer, where the top chest strap pair extends from the body portion, over the first layer, through the chest slot pair, and fastens with the bottom chest strap pair, and where the top girth strap pair extends from the body portion, over the first layer, through the middle slot pair, and fastens with the bottom girth strap pair.
The instant invention grants criticality to the construction and assembly of the interchangeable cape and harness, including straps of the harness threaded between layers of a dual layer cape member that allows for secure attachment, while providing a versatile system that allows a user to switch the cape members depending on the activity or environment (see instant specification at paragraphs [0003]-[0005], and [0040]).
Reid teaches first and second layers of a cape with chest, girth, and rib straps woven through slots formed between the two layers, but is silent regarding the second layer including a left and right side separated by a gap, in which a body portion is of a top frame is disposed on top of the first layer and within the gap of the second layer. Additionally, due to the construction of the straps and the cape, it would not be obvious to interchange the cape member (see also, Remarks dated 11/26/2024 in Application No. 16/916,028). The teachings of Fouche and Zimmerman fail to cure the deficiencies of Reid. Prior art previously relied upon, including Lui (US 20180116175 A1), Druout (FR 2883451 A1), Dooley (US 5887772 A), and Carli (US 0660414 A), teach similar harness systems. However, they also do not teach the above limitations or cure the deficiencies of Reid. Such modifications to Reid would require impermissible hindsight and significant reconstruction.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 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.
Conclusion
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 Jessica Byun whose telephone number is (571) 272-3212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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. Agendas may be sent to HaeRie.Byun@uspto.gov.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Poon can be reached on (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.
/H.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/MARISA V CONLON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643