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 .
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 1-6 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.
Claim 1 recites “a plug body”, Claims 4 recites “a first plug body” and “a second plug body” and Claim 5 recites “the first plug body” and “the second plug body”, respectively. This creates confusion as to how many plug bodies exist. It cannot be determined the first and second plug bodies are subassemblies of a plug body assembly or two separate plug bodies. To address this issue, a limitation in Claim 1 such as “at least one plug body” would make the claim definite.
Claim 1 recites “a coupling body” and Claim 4 recites “a first coupling body”, “a second coupling body” and “a third coupling body”. This creates confusion as to how many coupling bodies exist. To address this issue, a limitation in Claim 1 such as “at least one coupling body” would make the claim definite.
Claim 1 recites “a first shape” and “a second shape” associated, respectively, with being “capable of passing through the opening” and “being latched by the opening”. However, it appears that the shape before passing through and after passing through (and therefore the “being latched” shape) would be the same shape and that the only shape change would occur DURING that passing through. Clarification is required.
Claim 6 recites “a loop” in line 10 and “a loop” in line 12, but these are different loops. Examiner suggests “a first loop” and “a second loop”.
Claims 2-3 is rejected as depending from a rejected claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McNeill, U.S. Patent 7,404,238.
Regarding Claim 1, insofar as the claim is understood, McNeill teaches:
A plug body (see 20, 22); and
a plurality of receptacle bodies (36a-c),
wherein the plug body and the receptacle bodies are coupled and aligned via a coupling body (see below).
PNG
media_image1.png
391
740
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, insofar as the claim is understood, McNeill teaches:
The receptacle bodies each have an opening (36a-c), and the plug body is elastically transformed between a first shape and a second shape (see Paragraph [0043], see Examiner’s Note), the first shape being capable of passing through the opening, the second shape being latched by a periphery of the opening (Figs. 4-6).
**Examiner’s Note: Examiner notes that the entire apparatus is made of the same flexible material and therefore both the plug body and the receptacle body will be elastically transformed between a first shape and a second shape.
Regarding Claim 3, insofar as the claim is understood, McNeill teaches:
The plug body and the receptacle bodies are alternately coupled and aligned via the coupling body (see below, see coupling body 24 in Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
333
445
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cochran, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0107033.
Regarding Claim 1, insofar as the claim is understood, Cochran teaches:
A plug body (see below); and
a plurality of receptacle bodies (see below),
wherein the plug body and the receptacle bodies are coupled and aligned via a coupling body (see below).
PNG
media_image3.png
251
402
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over McNeill ‘432.
Regarding Claim 4, McNeill teaches:
A first plug body (see below) is disposed on one end,
a first receptacle body (see below) is coupled to the first plug body via a first coupling body (see below),
a second plug body (see below) is positioned on an extension line of the first coupling body and coupled to the first receptacle body via a second coupling body (see below),
a second receptacle body (see below) is positioned on an extension line of the first and second coupling bodies and coupled to the second plug body via a third coupling body (see below), and
the first plug body, the first receptacle body, the second plug body, and the second receptacle body are coupled and aligned with each other (see below).
Examiner submits that the first coupling body, second coupling body and third coupling body all connect the various bodies together into a single assembly and therefore meet the claim limitations because direct connection (or a specific order of connection) is not explicitly required by the claim.
Should Applicant disagree then Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the claimed plug, receptacle and coupling bodies in the specific order of Applicant’s figures because that would permit the McNeill device to form two large loops (as opposed to a small loop and large loop, see 40, 42) and this would permit the storage of more than one cable which would improve the utility of the device (see Figs. 9-11) and rearrangement of parts is generally considered obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art and applicant has not provided any unforeseen result stemming from the use of the claimed structure nor provided any specific problem solved by the claimed structure nor has Applicant cited any criticality to the disclosed order of the bodies in the figures, In re Japikse.
PNG
media_image4.png
324
496
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNeill ‘432 as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Cochran ‘033.
Regarding Claim 5, McNeill teaches:
The first plug body is shaped like a triangle (see above)
And the first receptacle body and the second receptacle body each internally having an opening (see above)
McNeill does not teach:
The second pug body shaped like a letter X
The first receptacle body shaped like a circle
The second receptacle body shaped like a rectangle.
Cochran teaches:
A plug body shaped like a letter X (see Fig. 3, element 310 which is X rotated 45 degrees).
A receptacle body shaped like a circle (see Fig. 3, 304).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide McNeill with the teachings of Cochran because the shape changes would provide a visual indicator so a user can match the proper plug to body to the proper receptacle body for the desired loop size and it is arbitrary to delineate the receptacle body to be a rectangle (see below) and a change in shape is generally considered obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art and applicant has not provided any unforeseen result stemming from the use of the claimed structure nor provided any specific problem solved by the claimed structure nor has applicant provided any criticality for the claimed shapes, In re Dailey.
PNG
media_image5.png
243
273
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNeill ‘432.
Regarding Claim 6, McNeill teaches:
A first plug body that is shaped like a triangle (20);
a first receptacle body (34);
a second plug body that is shaped like a triangle (22);
and a second receptacle body (36a)…
…coupling bodies (see below, see drawing selections above)…
…the band is transformable between a state in which the first or second plug body is passed through a hollow section of the first or second receptacle body and latched to form a loop (see Fig. 6, element 40) and a stated in which either one of the first or second receptacle bodies is passed through a hollow section to another one of the first and second receptacle bodies and latched to form a loop (42).
McNeill does not teach:
The first receptacle body shaped like a hollow circle or a hollow square;
The second receptacle body shaped like a hollow circle or a hollow rectangle
The first plug body, the first receptacle body, the second plug body, and the second
receptacle body are aligned via coupling bodies in that order.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the first and second receptacle body shaped like a hollow circle or hollow square or hollow rectangle because the shape changes would provide a visual indicator so a user can match the proper plug to body to the proper receptacle body for the desired loop size and it is arbitrary to delineate the receptacle body to be a rectangle (see below) and a change in shape is generally considered obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art and applicant has not provided any unforeseen result stemming from the use of the claimed structure nor provided any specific problem solved by the claimed structure nor has applicant provided any criticality for the claimed shapes, In re Dailey. It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the first plug body, the first receptacle body, the second plug body, and the second receptacle body are aligned via coupling bodies in that order because that would permit the McNeill device to form two large loops (as opposed to a small loop and large loop, see 40, 42) and this would permit that storage of more than one cable which would improve the utility of the device (see Figs. 9-11) and a rearrangement of parts is generally considered obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art and applicant has not provided any unforeseen result stemming from the use of the claimed structure nor provided any specific problem solved by the claimed structure nor has Applicant cited any criticality to the disclosed order of the bodies in the figures, In re Japikse.
PNG
media_image5.png
243
273
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5218. The examiner can normally be reached IFP, Typically M-Th, 8:00-6:00, regular Fr availability.
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, Jason San can be reached at 571-272-6531. 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.
/MATTHEW J SULLIVAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights