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 .
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 drawing should have the appropriate reference numerals for each reference element of the disclosure and the quality of shading and lines is of poor quality and must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 11-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cubbertson (US Patent 9,433,188).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Cubbertson teaches a housing 10, a first tether 30 including a first end (unnumbered) coupled to the housing 10, a securing mechanism 36 configured to removably coupled to a second end of the first tether 30 to the housing 30, a second tether 12 including a first end or proximate end 14 retractably coupled to the housing 30, a first connector 19 coupled to a second end 16 of the second tether 12 and a second connector 34 coupled to the housing 30. However, Cubbertson does not discuss the second connector configured to removably couple to the first connector 19. Regarding claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to clip the d-type connector or first connector 19 onto the first tether 30 while the securing mechanism 36 is coupled to the second connector 34, and thus is deemed to be obviously configured to removably couple the second connector to the first connector.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, a retraction mechanism 50 is positioned inside of the housing 10. See figure 3.
Regarding claim 3, an input 26 is positioned on the housing 10 and configured to activate the retraction mechanism 50.
Regarding claim 4, 13 and 14 the input or button 26 allows the second tether to be extended.
As for claims 5 and 15, the securing mechanism 36 is configured to secure the first tether to the housing at different lengths. See figure 1.
Regarding claims 6, 7 and 17, Cubbertson does not teach the use of an i-bolt, however, the connector of Cubbertson is structurally equivalent and thus are deemed to be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed.
Claim(s) 8, 9, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cubbertson (US Patent 9,433,188) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Peck (2015/0208616). Cubbertson does not teach an accessory or GPS tracker. Peck teaches an accessory attached to the leash system that includes an accessory for attaching a phone which includes a GPS tracker. Regarding claims 8, 9, 18 and 19, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide the leash sysem of Cubbertson with an accessory to hold a phone, in view of the teachings of Peck, in order to maintain communication while using the device.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cubbertson (US Patent 9,433,188) in view of Peck (2015/0208616) as applied to claims 8 and 18 above, and further in view of Galdo (US Patent 2006/0231043). Cubbertson as modified by Peck does not teach an accessory which is a storage compartment. Galdo teaches an accessory that is a storage compartment. Regarding claims 10 and 20, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the combination of Cubbertson as modified by Peck with a storage compartment accessory, in view of Galdo, in order to hold items while walking your pet.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD T. PRICE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-6892. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-3:30PM.
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 M. 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.
/RICHARD T PRICE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643