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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-11 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on the merits.
As of the date of this action, no information disclosure statement has been filed on behalf of this case.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species 2 in the reply filed on 3/12/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 3 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/12/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10 states “and which is movable mounted on the housing”, the examiner believes that this should state “and which is movably mounted on the housing”. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2, 4-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Duffin (US #11,457,612).
Regarding claim 1, Duffin teaches a retractable leash device for uncoiling and coiling an animal leash, wherein the retractable leash device comprises a housing (101), a spool body (10, and 26) rotatably mounted on the housing (Column 4, lines 38-48), and a return spring (13) which returns the spool body to a coiling position in which the animal leash is arranged coiled on the spool body (Column 5, lines 4-9, and lines 40-48), 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 (Column 5, lines 4-9, and lines 28-48, this teaches that the return spring can be used to maintain tension on the leash as the spool is rotated to uncoil the leash and allow it to extend), wherein a brake device (20, and 30) is mounted inside the housing (20 as seen in figure 3), which brake device has a brake element designed to brake the rotating spool body (Column 4, lines 39-59), wherein the brake element is movable against the force of a return element (26) from a rest position, in which the spool body can rotate freely, into a braking position, in which the brake element brakes the rotation of the spool body (Column 4, lines 39-59, and Column 6, lines 4-19, this teaches that there is a compression spring attached to the brake system that biases the system to an unbraked position but can be overcome with an application of force), wherein a remaining length detection device (40) designed to detect a predetermined remaining length of the animal leash coiled on the spool body is arranged inside the housing (Column 5, lines 28-39, and Column 7, lines 29-58), and wherein an automatic braking device coupled to the remaining length detection device is arranged inside the housing (Column 5, lines 28-39, and Column 7, line 29-Column 8, line 18), which, when the predetermined remaining length of the animal leash coiled onto the spool body is reached, is designed to urge the braking element in the direction of an automatic braking position and to brake the spool body with an automatic braking force (Column 5, lines 28-39, and Column 7, line 29-Column 8, line 18).
Regarding claim 2, Duffin teaches a retractable leash device according to claim 1, wherein the remaining length detection device is designed to determine the predetermined remaining length of the animal leash coiled onto the spool body on the basis of a predetermined number of revolutions and/or partial revolutions of the spool body rotating during uncoiling of the animal leash (Column 5, lines 28-39, and Column 7, lines 29-58).
Regarding claim 4, Duffin teaches a retractable leash device according to claim 1, wherein the remaining length detection device is designed as a step gear (41) and has a step wheel (42) rotatably mounted inside the housing (41, and 42 as seen in figure 8), which is designed to intermittently transmit the rotation of the spool body to the automatic braking device (41, and 42 as seen in figure 8, and Column 5, lines 28-39, as can be seen the step gear only has teeth that will interact with the step wheel over a small portion of the gear which creates an intermittent transmission of rotation).
Regarding claim 5, Duffin teaches a retractable leash device according to claim 4, wherein the spool body is designed with at least one driver tooth (26, and 41 as can be seen in figure 8, as can be seen the step gear is a component of the spool and has a drive tooth that interfaces with the step wheel) which engages in the step wheel per one revolution of the spool body and rotates the step wheel by a predetermined step wheel partial revolution (26, 41, and 42 as seen in figure 8, and Column 5, lines 28-39).
Regarding claim 6, Duffin teaches a retractable leash device according to claim 5, wherein the remaining length detection device has an index wheel (43) rotatably mounted inside the housing (43 as seen in figure 8, and Column 5, lines 28-39), which is arranged between the step wheel and the automatic braking device (42, 43, 44, and 45 as seen in figure 8, and Column 5, lines 28-39) and which is designed to be brought into operative connection with the automatic braking device (Column 5, lines 28-39), wherein the step wheel is designed to engage in the index wheel after a predetermined number of predetermined step wheel partial rotations and to rotate the index wheel by a predetermined index wheel partial rotation (42, and 43 as seen in figure 8, as can be seen as the step wheel rotates the predetermined distance of one step wheel tooth the step wheel engages the index wheel and rotates the index wheel a predetermined distance).
Regarding claim 7, Duffin teaches a retractable leash device according to claim 1, wherein the automatic braking device has a control element via which the remaining length detection device is movement-coupled to the braking device in such a way that the remaining length detection device moves the control element from a basic position (Column 5, lines 28-39, and Column 7, line 29-Column 8, line 18), in which the control element is designed to hold the brake element in its rest position, into an operating position at the latest when the predetermined remaining length of the animal leash coiled onto the spool body is reached (Column 5, lines 28-39, and Column 7, line 29-Column 8, line 18), wherein in the operating position the control element is designed to arrange the brake element in the automatic braking position and the brake element brakes a rotation of the spool body with the automatic braking force (Column 5, lines 28-39, and Column 7, line 29-Column 8, line 18).
Regarding claim 9, Duffin teaches a retractable leash device according to claim 1, wherein a brake switch (21) is movably mounted on the housing (21 as seen in figure 6, and Column 5, lines 10-20) and is designed such that, as a result of manual actuation of the brake switch, the uncoiling of the animal leash is braked or blocked (Column 5, lines 10-20).
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.
Claims 8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duffin (US #11,457,612) in view of Chung (PGPub #2020/0205380).
Regarding claim 8, Duffin teaches a retractable leash device according to claim 7, wherein the control element is connected to the brake device (Column 5, lines 28-39, and Column 7, line 29-Column 8, line 18), wherein the control element is designed to hold the brake element in the rest position or to push it into the rest position before the predetermined remaining length of the animal leash coiled onto the spool body is reached (Column 5, lines 28-39, and Column 7, line 29-Column 8, line 18, this teaches that the control element keeps the brake in the rest position until the predetermined remaining length is reached). But does not teach that the control element is connected to the brake device by a control element spring which controls the deployment of the brake device.
However, Chung does teach that the control element is connected to the brake device by a control element spring which controls the deployment of the brake device (5, and 31 as seen in figure 2, and Paragraph 27). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the movement of the brake system to be controlled by a spring because Duffin and Chung are both retractable animal leashes with braking systems. The motivation for having the movement of the brake system to be controlled by a spring is that it helps to ensure that the brake system is returned to the rest position when the brake is not needed to be active.
Regarding claim 10, Duffin teaches a retractable leash device according to claim 1, but does not teach that the brake device is designed such that the brake element brakes the spool body as a result of an additional braking force automatically generated by an animal leash tension caused by the uncoiling of the animal leash, and wherein the braking device has a brake deflection device at which the animal leash is deflected and which is movable mounted on the housing so as to be movable relative to the spool body and which is designed to transmit the animal leash tension to the brake element. However, Chung does teach that the brake device is designed such that the brake element brakes the spool body as a result of an additional braking force automatically generated by an animal leash tension caused by the uncoiling of the animal leash (Paragraph 27), and wherein the braking device has a brake deflection device (5, 31, 32, and 33 as seen in figures 2, and 4) at which the animal leash is deflected and which is movably mounted on the housing so as to be movable relative to the spool body and which is designed to transmit the animal leash tension to the brake element (5, 31, 32, and 33 as seen in figures 2, and 4, and Paragraph 27). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a brake system that is deflected by the tension on the leash from the animal to move relative to the spool because Duffin and Chung are both retractable animal leashes with braking systems. The motivation for having a brake system that is deflected by the tension on the leash from the animal to move relative to the spool is that it helps to limit the dog when it is rushing away from the user to help control the dog.
Regarding claim 11, Duffin as modified by Chung teaches a retractable leash device according to claim 10, but Duffin does not teach that the brake device comprises a brake lever designed as a single- sided lever, which is mounted on a pivot axis on the housing and to which the brake element and the brake deflection device are attached. However, Chung does teach that the brake device comprises a brake lever designed as a single- sided lever (5, 31, 32, and 33 as seen in figures 2, and 4, and Paragraph 27), which is mounted on a pivot axis on the housing and to which the brake element and the brake deflection device are attached (5, 31, 32, and 33 as seen in figures 2, and 4, and Paragraph 27). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the brake device have a lever on a pivot axis with the brake element and deflection device because Duffin and Chung are both retractable animal leashes with braking systems. The motivation for having the brake device have a lever on a pivot axis with the brake element and deflection device is that it allows the system to efficiently move between a tensioned position where the brake is applied and a rest position where the brake isn’t applied when there isn’t excess tension in the line.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM LAWRENCE GMOSER whose telephone number is (571)270-5083. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:00-5:00.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/WILLIAM L GMOSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights