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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, each of the following must be clearly shown or the feature canceled from the claim(s):
“placement groove 304” is not clearly shown, as it appears to be a bump out, and not coordinating with a hole/aperture in the wall of 300, which should be in full field of view in Fig.
“wherein a front end surface of the leash device body is provided with a hand grip opening” is not clearly shown such that PHOSITA would know what is both the front end or the surface discussed. No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “reel” in the specification is used to mean “face plate,” while the accepted meaning is synonymous with spool. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Appropriate correction is required.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses phrasing which can be implied (“Disclosed is…”). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“characterized in that” should be replaced with --wherein--;
where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75(i). Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “reel” in claims 1, 2, & 4 is used by the claim to mean “face plate,” while the accepted meaning is synonymous with spool. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Additionally, the term “connection port” in claim 3 is used by the term to mean “connection point” or “connector” while the accepted meaning is “an opening or doorway in the side of a ship,” Wiktionary. Lastly, the term “limiting port” is found in claim 5 without a clear meaning.
Further RE Claim 1, the phrase “an inner side wall of the working cavity is provided with a leash opening penetrating inner and outer sides,” does not make sense since the inner side wall now has inner and outer sides. The entire claim should be revisited to tie different relative terms together, note the repetition of “inner” “outer” “side” “end” “surface” and the like.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the leash steel rope” in lines 13-15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waxman et al. (US 20040237906 A1, “Waxman”) in view of Musetti (US 4748937 A) and Anthony (US 1555544 A).
For Claim 1, Waxman discloses a pet leash device (title, disclosure), comprising a leash device body (10), wherein a front end surface of the leash device body is provided with a hand grip opening penetrating front and rear sides (the grip opening extending through the front and rear surfaces, Fig. 1), a working cavity1 is formed in an interior of the leash device body (Fig. 2), an inner side wall of the working cavity is provided with a leash opening penetrating inner and outer sides (accepting 12, Fig. 2), and a leash rope reel is rotatably connected to an inner side of the leash device body (reel 21), characterized in that:
the leash rope reel comprises a first reel and a second reel (the outside plates of reel 21), a leash rope winding shaft is connected between the first reel and the second reel (represented by the opening housing the spring, found in Fig. 2), an outer surface of the leash rope winding shaft is provided with a placement groove opening outward (the opening between the plates of reel 21);
the leash rope is wound around the leash rope winding shaft (in the normal operation of the device), and an opposite end of the leash rope extends outward from the leash opening ¶0037.
Waxman is silent to the leash being made of steel,
an end of the placement groove penetrates the second reel to communicate with the exterior;
an end of the leash steel rope is connected to an inner side of the placement groove.
Musetti, like prior art above, teaches a retractable leash (title, disclosure) further comprising the leash being made of steel (Col. 3, lines 40-41).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the leash of Waxman to be made of steel as taught by Musetti, in order to better withstand repeated environmental stresses, yielding predictable results. Such a modification would have been further obvious since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obviousness. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Anthony, like prior art above, teaches a spooling device (title, disclosure) further comprising an end of placement groove penetrates second reel to communicate with exterior, an end of the leash rope is connected to an inner side of the placement groove (F’ within the channel ending in Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify a sidewall of the spool of Waxman with an accepting channel extending therethrough as taught by Anthony, in order to provide a more secure connection of the device, yielding predictable results.
For Claim 2, Waxman as modified above teaches the pet leash device according to claim 1, and Anthony further teaches wherein a fixation groove opening outward is provided at the opening of the placement groove on an end surface of the second reel distal to the first reel (as seen in Fig. 2).
For Claim 3, Waxman as modified above teaches the pet leash device according to claim 1, and Waxman further discloses wherein an end of the leash steel rope located outside the working cavity forms a connection port (the attachment point to the animal, in its normal use).
For Claim 4, Waxman as modified above teaches the pet leash device according to claim 1, and Waxman further discloses wherein a reset cavity opening outward is provided at a central portion of an end surface of the first reel distal to the second reel, and a reset spring plate is disposed within the reset cavity (the inner side of Fig. 2, housing the spring).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waxman in view of Musetti and Anthony as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Paugh et al. (US 5699975 A, “Paugh”).
For Claim 5, Waxman as modified above teaches the pet leash device according to claim 4.
Waxman is silent to wherein a protruding limiting post is provided on a bottom wall of the reset cavity adjacent to its edge, and a limiting port is formed between the limiting post and an inner side wall of the reset cavity.
Paugh, like prior art above, teaches a retractable device (title, disclosure) further comprising wherein a protruding limiting post (20) in the reset cavity (Fig. 2), and a limiting port (21) is formed between the limiting post and an inner side wall of the reset cavity (Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the reset cavity of Waxman with the protruding limiting post and limiting port as taught by Paugh, in order to provide a well-known manner in which to mount the spring to the reset cavity, yielding predictable results.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to provide the protruding limiting post on a bottom wall of the reset cavity adjacent to the edge of [the reset cavity], in order to provide a mounting point which is seamlessly formed on the inside of the device, yielding predictable results, and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
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 WO 2012149625 A1, US 6234418 B1, US 20240358000 A1, US 20180027775 A1, US 20150291385 A1, US 20150014471 A1, US 20020023984 A1, US 5695148 A, US 4938432 A, US 4328767 A, US 3853283 A, US 3758045 A, US 2946562 A, US 2908453 A, US 2678778 A, US 1950745 A, US 1920843 A, US 1802104 A 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 Interpretation note: there appears to be no “working” portion of the cavity.