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 .
Acknowledgment is made of the amendment filed September 3, 2025. The application has been updated accordingly.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 3, 2025 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-10 and 12-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolner et al. (2009/0032333) hereinafter Wolner, in view of O’Shall et al. (2005/0194211) hereinafter O’Shall, and further in view of Wise (2008/0060872).
Wolner discloses:
Claim 1: A suspension trauma relief system for use with a body harness, comprising:
two straps (Fig. 12; 101 and 201), each comprising a first end (Fig. 4; 102 and Fig. 6; 202) and a second end (Fig. 4; 105 and Fig. 6; 205), wherein the first end of each strap further comprises a first attachment device (Fig. 4; 103 and Fig. 6; 203) configured to attach the first end of each strap to a body harness (Fig. 9; 103 and 203 attach to the harness (400) in the same manner, Para. [0035]) and the second end of each strap further comprises a looped end (Fig. 12; 105 is a looped end and 207 is a looped end) and a second attachment device (Fig. 12; 106) coupled to the looped end and (Fig. 12; 106 is coupled to looped end 105) wherein the second ends of each strap are releasably attached to each other (Fig. 12; 106 is depicted as attached to 206 but can alternately be attached to 207);
Wolner fails to disclose an adjustment mechanism positioned along each strap adjacent to either the first or the second end of each strap, the adjustment mechanism comprising:
a buckle; and a keeper located along the strap distally from the buckle.
However, O’Shall discloses an adjustment mechanism comprising buckles (Fig. 5A; 130’) and keepers (Fig. 5A; 160’) on each strap.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify each strap of Wolner to include the adjustment mechanisms, as taught by O’Shall, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow the user to make adjustments to the length of the straps while actively using the suspension trauma system.
Thus, in combination Wolner and O’Shall disclose the leg straps of Wolner with the adjustment mechanisms of O’Shall located on each leg strap of Wolner, where the straps are adjustable using the buckles and keepers of O’Shall.
Additionally, Wolner fails to disclose a second attachment device coupled to the looped end of each strap, wherein the second attachment device of one strap is configured to move from a closed position to an open position to release the first attachment device of the other strap therefrom.
However, Wise discloses two attachment devices (Fig. 1; 20 and 22) where one is configured to move from a closed position to an open position (Fig. 1; 20).
Therefore, 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 assembly of Wolner to include the attachment devices, as taught by Wise, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for secure attachment and prevent the attachment device from slipping out of the loop of the other strap.
Thus, in combination Wolner and Wise disclose the first and second attachment devices configured to be releasably connected to one another, of Wise where the first attachment device is attached to a loop of a distal end of a first strap of Wolner, and the second attachment device is attached to a loop of a distal and of a second strap of Wolner.
Claim 2: Wolner discloses the suspension trauma relief system of claim 1, further comprising a pouch (Fig. 9; 110 and 210, Para. [0032 and 0036]) dimensioned to store each strap within it.
Claim 4: Wolner discloses the suspension trauma relief system of claim 2, wherein the pouch is removably attached to the body harness by a loop (Fig. 9; created by 116a and 116b, Para. [0035]).
Claims 5 and 13: Wolner and Wise disclose the suspension trauma relief system of claims 1 and 9, wherein one of the first or second attachment devices is a carabiner (Wise - Fig. 1; 20).
Claims 6 and 14: Wolner discloses the suspension trauma relief system of claims 1 and 9, but fails to disclose wherein one of the first or second attachment devices is a ring.
However, Wise discloses a ring as an attachment device (Fig. 1; 22).
Therefore, 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 attachment device of Wolner to include the ring, as taught by Wise, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for quick and secure attachment and detachment of the straps.
Claim 7: Wolner in view of O’Shall disclose the suspension trauma relief system of claim 1, wherein the keeper connects the strap with a portion of the strap doubled back on itself (O’Shall – Fig. 5A depicts keeper 160’ with a strap (Wolner) doubled back on itself).
Claim 9: Wolner discloses a suspension trauma relief system for use with a body harness, comprising:
a first strap (Fig. 12; 101) and a second strap (Fig. 12; 201) each comprising a distal looped end (Fig. 4; 105 is a looped end and Fig. 6; 205 is looped at 207) and a proximal end (Fig. 4; 102 and Fig. 6; 202);
a first attachment device (Fig. 12; 106 – see detail) attached to the distal looped end of the first strap (Fig. 12; 106 is attached to looped end 105) and a second separate attachment device attached to the distal looped end of the second strap (Fig. 12; 106 is attached to looped end 207 – see detail);
a third attachment device attached to the proximal end of the first strap (Fig. 4; 103) and a fourth attachment device attached to the proximal end of the second strap (Fig. 6; 203), the third attachment device and the fourth attachment device configured to attach the proximal ends of the first strap and the second strap to a body harness (Fig. 9; 103 and 203 attach to the harness (400) in the same manner, Para. [0035]);
Wolner fails to disclose a first adjustment mechanism positioned along the first strap adjacent to the proximal end of the first strap, the first adjustment mechanism comprising:
a buckle; and
a keeper located along the strap distally from the buckle; and
a second adjustment mechanism positioned along the second strap adjacent to the proximal end of the second strap, the second adjustment mechanism comprising:
a buckle; and
a keeper located along the strap distally from the buckle.
However, O’Shall discloses an adjustment mechanism comprising buckles (Fig. 5A; 130’) and keepers (Fig. 5A; 160’) on each strap.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify each strap of Wolner to include the adjustment mechanisms, as taught by O’Shall, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow the user to make adjustments to the length of the straps while actively using the suspension trauma system.
Thus, in combination Wolner and O’Shall disclose the leg straps of Wolner with the adjustment mechanisms of O’Shall located on each leg strap of Wolner, where the straps are adjustable using the buckles and keepers of O’Shall.
Additionally, Wolner fails to disclose wherein the first attachment device and the second attachment device are releasably connected to one another and the second attachment device is configured to move from a closed position to an open position to release the first attachment device therefrom.
However, Wise discloses first and second attachment devices configured to be releasably connected to one another and the first attachment device is configured to move from a closed position to an open position to accept the second attachment device therein (Fig. 3A; 20 and 22, Para. [0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the attachment device of Wolner with the first and second attachment devices, as taught by Wise, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide an attachment means that is secure and less likely to be inadvertently disconnected.
Thus, in combination Wolner and Wise disclose the first and second attachment devices configured to be releasably connected to one another, of Wise where the first attachment device is attached to a loop of a distal end of a first strap of Wolner, and the second attachment device is attached to a loop of a distal and of a second strap of Wolner.
Claim 10: Wolner discloses the suspension trauma relief system of claim 9, further comprising a first pouch and a second pouch (Fig. 9; 110 and 210, Para. [0032 and 0036]) dimensioned to store the first strap and second strap within the respective first and second pouch.
Claim 12: Wolner discloses the suspension trauma relief system of claim 10, wherein the first and second pouches are removably attached to the body harness with a loop (Fig. 9; created by 116a and 116b, Para. [0035]).
Claim 15: Wolner in view of O’Shall disclose the suspension trauma relief system of claim 9, wherein the first and second adjustment mechanisms are a buckle (O’Shall - Fig. 5A; 130’).
Claim 16: Wolner in view of O’Shall disclose the suspension trauma relief system of claim 9, wherein the first and second strap are individually adjustable (O’Shall - Fig. 5A; 130’ are each individually adjustable).
Claim 17: Wolner, O’Shall and Wise disclose the method of using the suspension trauma relief system of claim 10, comprising:
removing the first (Wolner - Fig. 12; 101) and a second straps (Wolner - Fig. 12; 201) from the first and second pouches located on the body harness (Wolner - Fig. 9; 110 and 210, Para. [0032 and 0036]); connecting the distal ends of the first and second straps to one another using the first and second attachment devices (Wise – Fig. 3A; 20 and 22); placing the user's feet on the first and second straps in order to redistribute the user's body weight (Wolner – Fig. 10); and
adjusting the first and second straps to the user's desired length using the first and second adjustment mechanisms (O’Shall - Fig. 5A; 130’).
Claim 18: Wolner discloses the method of claim 17, further comprising placing the first and second pouches on the body harness (Wolner - Fig. 9; 110 and 210, Para. [0032 and 0036]).
Claims 19 and 20: Wolner discloses the suspension trauma relief system of claims 1 and 9, but fails to disclose wherein the two straps are of an approximately equal length.
While Wolner fails to specifically disclose wherein the two straps are of an approximately equal length, the examiner asserts that the length of the straps would need to be of approximately equal length in order to be secured to one another to form a sling for the worker to stand on because the distal ends of the straps are to be connected to one another, as described in [Para. 0036]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use straps of approximately equal length with a reasonable expectation of success because it would make a uniform sling formation.
Claim 21: Wolner discloses the suspension trauma relief system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the first and second attachment devices are positioned at feet of a user while in use.
While Wolner fails to specifically disclose wherein the first and second attachment devices are positioned at feet of a user while in use, the examiner asserts that, as explained in the rejection of claims 19 and 20, with the length of the straps of approximately equal length the distal ends of the straps are to be connected to one another and located at the workers feet, as described in [Para. 0036], providing a sling for the worker to stand on. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to locate the attachment devices at the feet of the worker with a reasonable expectation of success because it would make a uniform sling formation.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolner et al. (2009/0032333) hereinafter Wolner, in view of O’Shall et al. (2005/0194211) hereinafter O’Shall, and further in view of Wise (2008/0060872), and still further in view of Barrow (2019/0388716).
Claim 3: Wolner discloses the suspension trauma relief system of claim 2, but fails to disclose wherein the pouch is permanently affixed to the body harness with stitching.
However, Barrow discloses a pouch permanently affixed to the body harness with stitching (Fig. 2; 144, Para. [0062]).
Therefore, 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 pouch of Wolner to be permanently affixed to the body harness with stitching, as taught by Barrow with a reasonable expectation of success because it would ensure the suspension trauma relief straps would always be attached to the body harness so they can be accessed in the event of a fall.
Claim 11: Wolner discloses the suspension trauma relief system of claim 10, but fails to disclose wherein the pouch is permanently affixed to the body harness with stitching.
However, Barrow discloses a pouch permanently affixed to the body harness with stitching (Fig. 2; 144, Para. [0062]).
Therefore, 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 pouch of Wolner to be permanently affixed to the body harness with stitching, as taught by Barrow with a reasonable expectation of success because it would ensure the suspension trauma relief straps would always be attached to the body harness so they can be accessed in the event of a fall.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 3, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the prior art rejections, applicant argues that the primary of Wolner fails to disclose each strap having both a looped end and two attachment devices that are attached to the respective looped ends, those attachment devices subsequently releasably attached to one another, and that the secondary reference of Wise fails to cure this. The claim states that Wise discloses two attachment devices (Fig. 1; 20 and 22) where one is configured to move from a closed position to an open position (Fig. 1; 20). Moreover, the first and second straps, of Wolner, each comprise a looped end at the second ends (105 and 207), Wolner is then modified by Wise to replace the attachment device (106) of Wolner with (20) of Wise and add (22) of Wise to 207. The applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill would not be motivated to include 20 and 22, of Wise to Wolner because it would not add any additional functionality to Wolner, this is not found persuasive because the repeated use of the attachment device of Wolner would ultimately result in wear of the attachment loops, which could lead to failure of the attachment or need for early replacement, therefore the addition of the attachment devices of Wise would provide rigid, non-fraying attachment ability. The modification/addition of the attachment devices of Wise were not combined with Wolner as a simple design choice, but as an obviousness rejection. The addition of multiple rings (22) to the additional loops of Wolner is not necessary to meet the claim limitations of claims 1 and 9. Additionally, Wolner discusses possible alternatives to the connection method used, such as a hook, a buckle (Para. [0030 & 0053]), or separate members operatively connected to the strap instead of closed loops (Para. [0036 & 0053]). Applicant’s argument that Wolner does not support equal strap lengths because equalizing the strap length while maintaining adjustability would change the operating principal and could lead to non-level footing is not found persuasive. Wolner depicts and describes a safety device where two straps (101/201) are connected to each other to form a sling for a fallen user to stand in. Straps 101 and 201 are described as having a first end (102/202), an intermediate portion (104/204) and a second end (105/205), however, Wolner fails to depict the intermediate portion (104) of strap (101), but instead includes break lines indicating that a portion of strap (101) is not depicted. In order for the straps to provide a uniform sling when the attachment device of (101) is attached to the loop (207) the individual straps would need to be equal lengths.
For at least this reason the applicant’s remarks are not found persuasive and the claims remain rejected as advanced above.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kathleen M. McFarland whose telephone number is (571)272-9139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571) 270-3238. 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.
/Kathleen M. McFarland/Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Kathleen M. McFarland
Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/BRIAN D MATTEI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3635