DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pluta (US 20240224942 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Pluta discloses a safety leash apparatus comprising: an elongated strap or cord (fig. 9, L, BH and 20) having a unitary leg loop section (34) that is adjustable to fit around a front leg of a dog (fig. 9, [0047] as 34 constricts and expands, and so is adjustable to fit around the front leg of the dog), the elongated strap or cord further having a body loop section (BH, TS and CS) that is fittable around a neck and shoulders of the dog (fig. 9), wherein the unitary leg loop section is tethered to the body loop section (fig. 9 as the unitary leg loop section is tethered to the body loop section via 24” and 64) to prevent the unitary leg loop section from slipping down and off the front leg of the dog (fig. 9 and [0047] as 24” will prevent the unitary leg loop section from slipping down and off the front leg of the dog as 64 is attached to TS), wherein the elongated strap or cord having the unitary leg loop section and the body loop section forms a single piece of the safety leash apparatus (fig. 9, note that the unitary leg loop section and the body loop section forms a single piece once the unitary leg loop section is connected to the body loop section).
Regarding claim 2, Pluta discloses the safety dog leash apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a clip connector (46) that is attached to one end of the elongated strap or cord (fig. 9 as 46 is attached to the end of 22).
Regarding claim 3, Pluta discloses the safety leash apparatus of claim 2, further comprising a leash handle (LH) that is attached to an opposing end (end of L where it meets with LH in fig. 9) of the elongated strap or cord (fig. 9 as LH is attached to the end of L).
Regarding claim 4, Pluta discloses the safety leash apparatus of claim 3, wherein the leash handle comprises a hand loop (fig. 9, loop of LH).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pluta in view of Horiuchi (US 20110297105 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Pluta teaches the safety leash apparatus of claim 1, wherein the unitary leg loop section is adjustable via a ring (62; fig. 9, [0047] as 22 slides freely within 62, which leads to the unitary leg loop section 34 to constrict and expand) to which a portion of the elongated strap or cord feeds through (fig. 9 and [0047] as 22 slides freely within 62), wherein a pulling force of the dog against the elongated strap or cord causes the unitary leg loop section to tighten around the front leg of the dog ([0047] as the pulling force of the dog against the elongated strap or cord will cause the unitary leg loop section 34 to tighten around the front leg of the dog as the unitary leg loop section 34 will constrict when 22 is pulled).
However, Pluta is silent about a slide adjuster mechanism.
Horiuchi teaches a slide adjuster mechanism (106L and 106R).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a slide adjuster mechanism as taught by Horiuchi into the apparatus of Pluta in order to adjust the length of the strap to accommodate the front leg of various sized animals ([0037] Horiuchi).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kamath (US 11140871 B2) teaches a unitary leg loop section.
Wais (US 3769939 A) teaches a unitary leg loop section.
Rovang (US 20230035255 A1) teaches a unitary leg loop section.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAHAR ALMATRAHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2470. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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.
/SAHAR ALMATRAHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/PETER M POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3643