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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/19/2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 47 and claim 62 are allowable. Claims 50-58, 60, and 64, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, require all the limitations of an allowable claim. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(a), the restriction requirement between the species as set forth in the Office action mailed on 7/5/2018, is hereby withdrawn and claims 50-58, 60, and 64 are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
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, “the connection means includes linking means configured to link the connection means to an external component, the connection means permitting pivotal movement about axes that are normal to and parallel to the bridge in a region of the connection means between the connection means and the external component” from claim 58, and the “rolling elements” from claim 60 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.
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 55 requires the loading components being in “threaded engagement with one another”, which seems to be describing the embodiment in fig. 16. The issue is that independent claim 47, from which claim 55 depends, requires at least a “swivel” among other structure, which is not found in this embodiment.
Claim 58 appears to be describing the embodiment in fig. 15. The issue is that independent claim 47, from which claim 58 depends, requires at least a “swivel” among other structure, which is not found in this embodiment.
Claim 64 appears to be describing the embodiment in fig. 16, as this is the embodiment with an adjustable length tubular body. The issue is that independent claim 62, from which claim 64 depends, requires at least a “swivel” among other structure, which is not found in this embodiment.
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 § 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 55, 58, 60, and 64 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.
Claim 55 requires the loading components being in “threaded engagement with one another”, which seems to be describing the embodiment in fig. 16. The issue is that independent claim 47, from which claim 55 depends, requires at least a “swivel” among other structure, which is not found in this embodiment. Thus, it is not clear what the applicant is intending on requiring.
Claims 58 and 60 each recite “the connection means”. It is not fully clear what the applicant is referring to, as no connection means has been positively required in the claim. As best understood, the applicant is referencing “the connection system”, but further clarity is required.
Claim 58 appears to be describing the embodiment in fig. 15, as this appears to be the only embodiment that has the connection means “permitting pivotal movement about axes that are normal to and parallel to the bridge in a region of the connection means between the connection means and the external component” as is required by the claim. The issue is that independent claim 47, from which claim 58 depends, requires at least a “swivel” among other structure, which is not found in this embodiment. Thus, it is not exactly clear what the applicant is intending on requiring.
Claim 64 appears to be describing the embodiment in fig. 16, as this is the embodiment with an adjustable length tubular body. The issue is that independent claim 62, from which claim 64 depends, requires at least a “swivel” among other structure, which is not found in this embodiment. Thus, it is not exactly clear what the applicant is intending on requiring.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. These include recitations of “connection means” and “linking means”.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Although many of the limitations found within the claims are known in the art, the following claims are found to be allowable because the examiner finds that the combination of positively required structure recited in the independent claim would require hindsight to apply art and/or a piece-meal rejection and/or an unreasonable interpretation in order to reject the claims.
Regarding claim 47, the closest prior art of record is not found to teach “a connection system comprising a coupling element and a swivel connector, the coupling element comprising an elongated body with a passage formed therethrough, the swivel connector being mounted to a pivot axis located at a mid-section of the coupling element, the elongated body comprising two ends, the elongated body completely encircling the bridge at both of the ends, the connection system being disposed along a length of the bridge, the bridge extending between the first and second D-rings and running through the passage of the elongated body” in combination with “wherein the coupling element is configured to always freely slide along the length of the bridge between the first and second D-rings in any configuration of the swivel connector about the pivot axis and configured to always freely slide under a load of the weight of the person, and the coupling element at least partially surrounds the bridge extending through the passage, and wherein the coupling element of the connection system loads the bridge at spaced-apart locations along the length of the bridge” as is required by the claim. Any possible combination was found to require impermissible hindsight.
Regarding claim 62, the closest prior art of record is not found to teach “ a connection system comprised of a swivel connector and a tubular body that receives the elongate flexible bridge therethrough, the tubular body including a first end portion with a first opening, a second end portion with a second opening facing opposite the first end portion, and an elongated midsection extending along a longitudinal axis from the first end portion to the second end portion, the tubular body completely encircling the elongate flexible bridge at both the first end portion and the second end portion, the tubular body enclosing a passage extending along the longitudinal axis from the first opening at the first end portion to the second opening at the second end portion to receive the elongate flexible bridge therethrough, and the swivel connector extending along a swivel axis from an upper portion with an attachment eye to a bottom-most end, a lower portion of the swivel connector located above the bottom-most end being mounted, at a location along the swivel axis, to a pivot axis located at a mid-section of the tubular body and which is normal to and spaced from the longitudinal axis, the swivel connector configured to connect the connection system, via the attachment eye, to a supporting element for carrying a weight of the harness, wherein the tubular body is configured to always freely slide along the elongate flexible bridge received therethrough” as is required by the claim. Any possible combination was found to require impermissible hindsight.
Claims 48-54, 56-57, 59, 61, 63, 65, and 67 are allowed for depending from an allowed claim.
Claims 55, 58, 60, and 64 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R SHEPHERD whose telephone number is (571)272-5657. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at (571) 270-5616. 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.
/M.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/Johnnie A. Shablack/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634