This is a Final office action for serial number 17/628270.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 3-5 (drawn to non-elected figures 15-18) and 11-14 (drawn to non-elected figures 13 and 14) are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on June 12, 2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of the election of species in the reply filed on June 12, 2025 is acknowledged. The lack of unity (regards to species) is proper since Cowell et al. (Cowell1) clearly EP3162411A1 discloses (as discussed below) the generic claim 1 of the applicant’s claimed invention. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claims contain the same overall subject matter that forms a cohesive invention theme. This is not found persuasive because the traversal is based on the grounds that the embodiments are directed to a unitary concept, or obvious modifications of one another, and based on various policy arguments. These arguments are unpersuasive. The arguments set forth by the applicant (i.e., a want of a serious burden on the examiner, or inventions having the same classification, or similar to each other, or obvious modifications of one another) are arguments commonly set forth when traversing a restriction of the invention. (See MPEP 803). However, the examiner is requiring the applicant to elect between several disclosed species. A proper traversal of an election of species includes arguments that the species are not patentable over one another. What’s more, if patentably different species are disclosed in the application, “... it is not necessary to show a separate status in the art or separate classification.” (See MPEP 808.01(a)). While there is a policy of compact prosecution, the plain language of the rules set forth that an examiner may require an election of species between patentably different species (see MPEP 808.01(a); 37 CFR 1.146). The argument regarding excessive expense is unpersuasive since excessive is a relative concept. Furthermore, as the applicant is aware, a separate fee schedule has been provided for those claiming small-entity status. Finally, there is no policy to reduce the number of patents; in fact, an argument could be made that it is less confusing to have a separate patent for each distinct embodiment. Since the applicant has not submitted persuasive arguments that the embodiments are not distinct from one another, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: secondary retention means in claim 9 and means of which items can be connected to the harness in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Cowell et al. (Cowell1) EP3162411A1. Cowell1 discloses (Claim 1) A harness (Figures 1A-B, 12, 24-26, and 29; paragraphs [0020]-[0021],[0038]-[0040])) comprising: a waist belt (14) to which two side attachment arrangements (100/110/72) are connected; two forward attachment arrangements (26); and a respective riser (18) extending between each forward attachment arrangement (26) and one corresponding side attachment arrangement (100/110/72); wherein each side attachment arrangement (100/110/72) includes a securing component (a back pad webbing (6) threaded through slots (78); paragraph [0039]) and a lying ring assembly (figure 26), the securing component being connected to the waist belt (through the back pad webbing (6)), and the lying ring assembly being held by the securing component against the waist belt (14), in which the lying ring assembly includes a retention component (100, 114, paragraph 0038) that, in use, passes through a loop or an eye in the riser (18, figure 29) to connect the riser to the lying ring assembly, which retention component is removable (last sentence of paragraph [0039]) from the lying ring assembly to release the connection between the riser and the lying ring assembly; (Claim 6) The harness of claim 1 wherein the riser is formed from webbing (paragraph [0038]); (Claim 7) The harness of claim 1 wherein the retention component is an axle that has a threaded portion that can be located by a threaded component within a bore of another component of the lying ring assembly (114 and pinch bolt); (Claim 8) The harness of claim 7,wherein the threaded component is a screw (114) and the threaded portion is an internally threaded bore of the axle; (Claim 9) The harness of claim 1 wherein the lying ring assembly further includes secondary retention means (pinch bolt) that serves to retain the retention component in place in the lying ring assembly in the absence of the threaded component; (Claim 10) The harness of claim 1 wherein the retention component is shaped such that when assembled as a component of the lying ring assembly, rotation of the retention component is prevented (Figure 29, using 116); (Claim 17) A The harness of claim 1 wherein the side attachment arrangements are substantially identical to or are mirror-images of one another; (Claim 19) The harness of claim 2, wherein the riser is formed from webbing (18); (Claim 20) The harness of claim 3, wherein the riser is formed from webbing (18).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cowell et al. (Cowell1) EP3162411A1 in view of Cowell et al. (Cowell2) ) EP3162411A1. Cowell1 discloses all of the limitations of the claimed invention except for the securing component is a ring through which pass one or more connecting elements that connect the securing component to the waist belt. Cowell2 discloses (Figure 1B) the securing component is a ring (22) through which pass one or more connecting elements that connect the securing component to the waist belt. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success to have modified Cowell1 to have the securing component to have a ring shape as taught by Cowell2 for the purpose of providing a more aesthetically pleasing member having a stronger, thicker, and more stable member to prevent failure or bending.
Claim(s) 15, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cowell et al. (Cowell1) EP3162411A1 in view of Paik 20100170065. Cowell 1 discloses all of the limitations of the claimed invention except for
one or more load-bearing attachment points is formed by a rib and the side attachment arrangements are dissimilar to one another. Paik teaches that it is known to have (Claim 15) The harness of claim 1 wherein the lying ring assembly (Figure 11) includes one or more load-bearing attachment points (left 124 and right 124) by means of which items can be connected to the harness; (Claim 16) The harness of claim 15 wherein one or more attachment point is formed by a rib (left 124 and right 124) that extends peripherally part-way around the lying ring assembly to define a slot through which a connection component can be passed; (Claim 18) A The harness claim 1 wherein the side attachment arrangements are dissimilar to one another (see figure 9 which teaches of one type of side attachment with rib 124/125 and figure 11 which teaches of another type of side attachment with two ribs (left 124 or right 124). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success to have modified Cowell to have one or more load-bearing attachment points is formed by a rib and the side attachment arrangements are dissimilar to one another as taught by Paik for the purpose of providing a means to one or more additional straps for auxiliary items.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 29, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. the loading of the claimed lying ring is much more complex; it is loaded in a direction that is generally normal to the plane of the ring…) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., continuous bearing surface upon which the retaining component can bear equal effectiveness irrespective of the relative positions of the lying ring and retaining component are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that
A consequence of this is that those of ordinary skill in this technical field will, by default, adopt a position that existing harness components should not be modified under any circumstances. Moreover, that the presence of a component in a harness to perform a particular function gives no indication that such a component could perform any other safety-critical function.
, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KIMBERLY T WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-6826. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 9:00am-5:30pm flexible schedule.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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.
/KIMBERLY T WOOD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631