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 .
As a note: the amendments filed to the claims precede the date of the “original” claims. However, in Applicant’s filing mail dated 5 May 2025, the following request was found: “Applicant respectfully requests that the above amendments be entered prior to calculation of the filing fee and prior to substantive examination.” Thus, the claim set dated 5 May 2025, which includes amendments to obviously overcome multiple dependency issues (as present in the version from 6 May 2025), is examined herein.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference leader line has been used to designate both 11 the brake deflection device and 17 a through-hole opening. 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. 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 1-13 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the retractable leash device comprises” which uses the functional term “wherein” and then nests the transitional term “comprises” under it; it is unclear where the body of the claim starts.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the spool body can be rotated out…” in line 7 does not positively or functionally require an action; instead, it refers to an option. It should be rephrased to --configured to-- or --capable of--, or to positively claim the action.
Claim 1 further recites “wherein the braking device is designed such that the brake element brakes the spool body as a result of a braking force automatically generated by an animal leash tension in the animal leash caused by the uncoiling of the animal leash,” while the present specification specifically notes that the braking force is, for example in paragraph1 [0006], a collective effect of the brake and the animal. It is unclear what, specifically, Applicant means by “automatically”.
Claims 2-13 recite “A retractable leash device” which appears to double include the parent claim. Each should be changed --The retractable leash device--.
The following claims recite the following limitations, for each there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the respective claim:
“the braking position” in claim 4, line 4;
“the coil body” in claim 6, line 4; and
“the brake lever” in claim 8, line 2, in claim 11, line 2, and in claim 12, line 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 & 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being disclosed by Jaeschke (DE 202006002147 U1).
For Claim 1, Jaeschke discloses a retractable leash device for uncoiling and coiling an animal leash (title, disclosure), wherein the retractable leash device comprises a housing (housing 10), a spool body (“role 12”) rotatably mounted on the housing and a return spring (“spring, not shown”), wherein the return spring is designed to push back or hold back the spool body into a
PNG
media_image1.png
168
242
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
270
304
media_image2.png
Greyscale
coiling position in which the animal leash is coiled onto the spool body (“There is a spring, not shown, when unwinding the leash 13 from the role 12 is stretched so that when releasing the line, the role is turned back to wind up the leash,” page 3 of the appended translation), wherein the spool body can be rotated out of the coiling position against a return force of the return spring for uncoiling the coiled animal leash (in the normal use of a retractable leash, the spool pulls against a biasing spring), wherein a braking device (brake device 16) comprises a brake element designed to brake the rotating spool body (“a brake device not shown in detail 16 present to lock the leash in the desired length” page 3), wherein the braking device is designed such that the brake element brakes the spool body as a result of a braking force automatically generated by an animal leash tension in the animal leash caused by the uncoiling of the animal leash (the brake 16 would act on the leash, including when an animal is pulling on the other end, producing a line tension), and wherein the braking device comprises a brake deflection device (movable edge area 17) at which the animal leash is deflected and which is mounted on the housing so as to be movable relative to the spool body (see 21) and which is designed to transmit the animal leash tension to the brake element (through the normal use of the brake and leash, the forces would transmit up and down the leash).
For Claim 8, Jaeschke discloses the retractable leash device according to claim 1, and Jaeschke further discloses wherein the brake lever (23) is designed as a single-sided lever (the free end being at 17) and the brake deflection device (17) is arranged at the free end of the lever (Fig. 2).
For Claim 9, Jaeschke discloses the retractable leash device according to claim 1, and Jaeschke further discloses wherein the brake deflection device (17) is designed as a deflection roller (“the edge area 17 is designed as a rotatable element, for example as a roller or pin, or includes such, which can rotate in the course of the elongation of the line due to the tensile force,” page 4) which is rotatably mounted and movable relative to the spool body (Fig. 2).
For Claim 10, Jaeschke discloses the retractable leash device according to claim 1, and Jaeschke further discloses wherein the brake deflection device (17) is designed as a through-hole opening which is movable relative to the housing and to the spool body (“the edge area 17 is designed as a rotatable element, for example as a roller or pin, or includes such, which can rotate in the course of the elongation of the line due to the tensile force,” page 4).
For Claim 11, Jaeschke discloses the retractable leash device according to claim 10, and Jaeschke further discloses wherein the through-hole opening (15) is formed on the brake lever (23).
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.
Claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaeschke as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Flexi (DE 20110706 U1).
For Claim 2, Jaeschke discloses the retractable leash device according to claim 1.
Jaeschke is silent to wherein the braking device comprises a brake lever which is mounted on a pivot axis on the housing and to which the brake element is attached.
Flexi, like prior art above, teaches a retractable dog leash (title, disclosure) further comprising a braking device (brake 6) comprising a brake lever (11) which is mounted on a pivot axis on the housing (via 10, Fig. 1) and to which the brake element is attached (10, 10a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the braking device of Jaeschke with a braking lever pivotally mounted to the housing as taught by Flexi, in order to implement a well-known linking mechanism for braking in retractable leashes, yielding predictable results.
For Claim 3, Jaeschke in view of Flexi teaches the retractable leash device according to claim 2 and the resulting device further teaches wherein the brake lever (11, Flexi) is movable against the force of a return element from a rest position, in which the spool body can rotate freely, into a braking position, in which the braking force of the brake element brakes the rotation of the spool body (in the normal use of the retractable leash of Jaeschke, the brake is engaged when the user wants to stop the payout of leash).
For Claim 4, Jaeschke in view of Flexi teaches the retractable leash device according to claim 3, and Flexi further teaches wherein a stop element (the housing surrounding 10, 10a) is arranged on the housing (Fig. 1), which limits movement of the brake lever (11) in the direction of the braking position at an end braking position (since the housing limits the button 6 from going any further into the housing, and the lever is attached to the button, the lever 11 movement is thereby limited).
For Claim 5, Jaeschke in view of Flexi teaches the retractable leash device according to claim 4, and Flexi further teaches wherein the brake element is attached to the brake lever via a spring element (within button 6) in such a way that, when the end braking position is reached (such as when lock 7 is engaged), only a maximum spring force of the spring element acts as a braking force on the rotating spool body (via 10, 10a).
For Claim 6, Jaeschke in view of Flexi teaches the retractable leash device according to claim 2, and the resulting device further teaches wherein a brake switch (7, Flexi) is movably mounted on the housing, and wherein the braking device is further designed such that the brake element brakes the coil body as a result of a braking force automatically generated by manual actuation of the brake switch (through the normal use of the retractable leash and its corresponding brake) and/or2 as a result of the animal leash tension caused by the uncoiling of the animal leash.
For Claim 7, Jaeschke in view of Flexi teaches the retractable leash device according to claim 6, and Flexi further teaches wherein the brake switch (7) is mounted on the brake lever (11, indirectly, Fig. 1).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaeschke as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Holmstrom (US 20130008392 A1).
For Claim 12, Jaeschke discloses the retractable leash device according to claim 1.
Jaeschke is silent to wherein the spool body is mechanically coupled to a limiting device and the limiting device is designed to push the brake lever in the direction of the braking position after a predetermined number of rotations of the spool body.
Holmstrom, like prior art above, teaches a retractable leash (title, disclosure) further comprising spool body (28) is mechanically coupled to a limiting device (30, 63, 69) and the limiting device is designed to push the brake lever in the direction of the braking position after a predetermined number of rotations of the spool body ¶0045.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the spool of Jaeschke with a limiting device as taught by Holmstrom, in order to provide a more versatile leash device, capable of use in a multitude of settings, yielding predictable results.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaeschke as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sackett (US 2217323 A).
For Claim 13, Jaeschke discloses the retractable leash device according to claim 1.
Jaeschke is silent to wherein the brake element comprises a brake shoe which is designed to be brought into contact with a brake surface of the spool body in order to brake the rotating spool body.
Sackett, like prior art above, teaches a retractable leash (title, disclosure), comprising brake element comprises a brake shoe (35) which is designed to be brought into contact with a brake surface of a spool body (the surface of the spool which is contacted by the shoe 35) in order to brake the rotating spool body (page 3, lines 32-43, for example, discussing the normal operation of a brake shoe).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the brake of Jaeschke with a shoe as taught by Sackett, in order to use a well-known method of slowing down the spool, yielding predictable results.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Special attention is drawn to the disclosures of US 20150359197 A1, US 5887550 A, US 20080173257 A1, US 20150359196 A1, US 20180338474 A1, US 11033003 B1, EP 0093445 A1, US 5762029 A, and DE 202006010918 U1 as disclosing an invention or aspects of the invention which are similar to those claimed and/or disclosed in the instant invention. The remaining references cited establish the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Morgan T. Jordan whose telephone number is (571)272-8141. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5:30.
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.
/MORGAN T JORDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
1 Paragraphs will be noted hereinafter as ¶.
2 Interpretation note: only one aspect is required due to the alternative construction triggered by the “or” limitation.