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 1-2 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
As of the date of this action, no information disclosure statement has been filed on behalf of this case.
Drawings
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
Additionally, the drawings are objected to for excess shading and it is noted that the drawings should be line drawings only. MPEP 1.84 m. Specifically, FIG 1 has excess shading making it unclear as to what the structures of the second snap are and where the two legs are and what 16E is meant to be. FIG 1 does not make it readily apparent or clear as to the structure of the snap and how it is intended to work due to the shading as it appears that 16E is protruding from the hook and is not retained within the sleeve as claimed.
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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 20040200436 A1) to Staack in view of (US 20100037833 A1) to Joung and (US 0827795 A) to Foucher.
In regards to claim 1, Staack teaches a tether device comprising: a coiled cable having first and second ends (Staack; coiled cable 1 with two ends with snaps 4), the coiled cable being coiled so as to have, in an untensioned state, an outer coil diameter, an inner coil diameter (Staack; see FIG where the coil of 1 has an inner and outer coil diameter), and a collapsed length (Staack; coil 1 at rest being the collapsed length), the coiled cable having a fully uncoiled length (Staack; coil 1 having an uncoiled length when stretched) and a hanging length to which the coiled cable extends under a weight thereof when the coiled cable is supported from the first end (Staack; coil 1 would have a length when hung), a coupling coupled to the first end of the coiled cable, a second coupling coupled to the second end of the coiled cable (Staack; couplings of snaps 4 at either end).
PNG
media_image1.png
556
427
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Staack fails to explicitly teach the fully uncoiled length being about two meters or less and the hanging length being about 0.6 meter or less; the first and second coupling being a swivel coupling, the second swivel coupling having a base, first and second arms extending side-by-side from the base, a swivel leg pivotably coupled to distal ends of the first and second arms, a latch extending from a distal end of the swivel leg, and a sleeve that translates on the base between a lock position proximate the first and second arms and the swivel leg and a release position farther from the first and second arms and the swivel leg, wherein in the lock position the second swivel coupling is closed as a result of the latch of the swivel leg being retained by the sleeve and the swivel leg being prevented from pivoting relative to the first and second arms, and in the release position the second swivel coupling is open as a result of the latch of the swivel leg being released from the sleeve and the swivel leg being free to pivot relative to the first and second arms.
Joung teaches the fully uncoiled length being about two meters or less (Joung; [0019] approximately six feet (which is approximately 1.82 meters) and the resting length being about 0.6 meter or less (Joung; [0019] 28 centimeters or 0.28 meters).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Staack such that it has a length of about two meters or less and a resting length about 0.6 meter or less such as taught by Joung. The motivation for doing so would be to size the coil to be of an appropriate length for different sized animals such as to be able to stretch accordingly without dragging on the ground.
Staack as modified by Joung fails to teach the hanging length being about 0.6 meter or less.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Staack such that it explicitly has a hanging length of about 0.6 meters or less. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
For example, Joung teaches that the coil can be made of varying lengths at rest and when fully stretched based on the size of the animal being tethered. Further, Joung teaches different coil diameters. Both elements would affect a hanging length of the coil. With the teachings of Staack as modified by Joung, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that a hanging length determines the amount of slack of the cord when in use or the weight of the elements attached to the cord or the weight of the cord itself and what materials it is comprised of. Consequently, the hanging length is considered to be a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the coil to have a hanging length of 0.6 meters or less for the purpose of having a stiffer coiled cable or a lighterweight cable that would not provide significant slack when in use with an animal and as a matter of routine optimization of hanging length, with predictable results. “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Though applicant states that the hanging length in the specification is to allow for the tether device to be uncoupled at the first swivel and allowed to hang freely without hanging so low on the horse as to become entangled or otherwise pose risk of harm to a horse [0022], there is no specific criticality for the length of 0.6 meters. Applicant states that the length can be less than 1 meter as well with similar considerations [0022], and therefore there is no described criticality for 0.6 meters or less for the hanging length. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to limit the hanging length of the cable to reduce slack when in use or when hanging for storage.
Staack as modified by Joung fail to explicitly teach the first and second coupling being a swivel coupling, the second swivel coupling having a base, first and second arms extending side-by-side from the base, a swivel leg pivotably coupled to distal ends of the first and second arms, a latch extending from a distal end of the swivel leg, and a sleeve that translates on the base between a lock position proximate the first and second arms and the swivel leg and a release position farther from the first and second arms and the swivel leg, wherein in the lock position the second swivel coupling is closed as a result of the latch of the swivel leg being retained by the sleeve and the swivel leg being prevented from pivoting relative to the first and second arms, and in the release position the second swivel coupling is open as a result of the latch of the swivel leg being released from the sleeve and the swivel leg being free to pivot relative to the first and second arms.
Foucher teaches the first and second coupling being a swivel coupling (Foucher; 2, 3), the second swivel coupling having a base (Foucher; base at 1), first and second arms extending side-by-side from the base (Foucher; first and second arm being either of 4 extending from 1), a swivel leg pivotably coupled to distal ends of the first and second arms (Foucher; swivel leg being 5 pivotably connected about pin 6), a latch extending from a distal end of the swivel leg (Foucher; free end 7 being the latch), and a sleeve that translates on the base between a lock position proximate the first and second arms and the swivel leg (Foucher; sleeve 10 which is in a lock position in FIG 1) and a release position farther from the first and second arms and the swivel leg (Foucher; see FIG 2 with a release position and 10 slid on the base), wherein in the lock position the second swivel coupling is closed as a result of the latch of the swivel leg being retained by the sleeve and the swivel leg being prevented from pivoting relative to the first and second arms (Foucher; see FIG 1 in the locked position), and in the release position the second swivel coupling is open as a result of the latch of the swivel leg being released from the sleeve and the swivel leg being free to pivot relative to the first and second arms (Foucher; see FIG 2 in the release position).
PNG
media_image2.png
634
483
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Staack and Foucher are analogous art from similar fields of endeavor i.e. hook connectors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Staack as modified by Joung such that the couplings are explicitly swivel couplings and that the second snap coupling is substituted for the snap coupling of Foucher. The motivation for doing so would be utilize the swivel to prevent entangling of the cords as well as to have a secure fastening device that can be quickly connected or disconnected when desired.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 20040200436 A1) to Staack as modified by (US 20100037833 A1) to Joung and (US 0827795 A) to Foucher as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of (US 0627709 A) to Schmahl.
In regards to claim 2, Staack as modified by Joung and Foucher teach a method of tethering a horse with the tether device of claim 1, the method comprising: coupling the first swivel coupling to a structure at an elevation above ground surface; and coupling the second swivel coupling to a tether on the horse (Staack; [0002] which describes connections to structures above ground such as hitches, rails, trailers, barn ties, and connections to equines and halter or collar; in normal use would perform the method).
Staack fails to explicitly teach coupling to a bridle.
Schmahl teaches the method comprising: coupling the first swivel coupling to a structure at an elevation above ground surface; and coupling the second swivel coupling to a bridle on the horse (Schmahl; connector with snaps utilized to connect a structure at an elevation above ground surface and to a bridle on a horse, see FIG 1).
PNG
media_image3.png
340
448
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Staack as modified by Joung and Foucher such that it is used in a method of coupling a bridle such as taught by Schmahl. The motivation for doing so would be to use the coupling device in its stated purpose of connecting tethers and structures, specifically the tether being a common a restraint used with horses such as the bridle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Snap hooks with a structure similar to the claimed second snap hook with an arm, swivel leg connected to the arm, and a sliding structure which locks or unlocks the pivoting leg:
US 1415692 A to Pavoni, US 1605799 A to Ver Valen, US 1200540 A to Swedlund, US D274038 S to Merry, US 4401333 A to Merry.
Coiled tethers with hooks for holding animals or small children with an inner and outer diameter of the coils, as well as an extended, relaxed, and hanging length:
US 2911947 A to Kramer, US 2994300 A to Grahling, US 20110011352 A1 to Lee, US 20190116763 A1 to Dunnum, US 20080216769 A1 to LaCross, US 20090301404 A1 to Tanaya, US 20070277750 A1 to Valencia, US 20190166792 A1 to MacVicar, US 20230210090 A1 to Riffeser, US 20090235873 A1 to Gould, US 20140007818 A1 to Cheng, US 7467604 B1 to Werner, US 11369086 B1 to Riffeser.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATELYN T TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-0023. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8-6.
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.
/KATELYN T TRUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647