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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 6, 7, & 11-14 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species B-G, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 04/13/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of the election of species requirement in the reply filed on 04/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant argues that the UKIPO granted a patent on substantially the same claim limitations as claim 1, with knowledge of the same prior art applied (US2011/113604). The USPTO and UKIPO are independent offices with separate statues regarding patentability. In this case, the USPTO examiner proceeds with an independent review of the application.
In response to applicant's argument that the reference (US2011/113604) fails to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the arrangement carrying articles) are not recited in the generic claim 1. 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). The requirement for election of species is maintained as the prior art shows the claim 1 to be generic.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8-9 & 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chu (PGPub US 2011/0113604 A1).
Regarding claim 1, the retractable trigger carabiner of Chu teaches an arrangement for carrying components comprising a first component that has an attachment formation (Annotated Fig 3 below), which attachment formation includes a length of tensile material that is connected to an attachment point on an article being worn by a person climbing or working at height (Annotated Fig 3 below; [0001]); and a racking carabiner connected to the attachment formation (Fig 3); the racking carabiner comprising:
a. an approximately C-shaped carabiner body (1) that has a pivot end portion and a nose end portion, between which an opening is defined (Fig 2; Fig 6);
b. a gate (4, Fig 2) pivotally connected to the body at the pivot end portion (Fig 2), and pivotable between a closed position, in which a connecting end portion of the gate engages with the nose end portion of the body to form a complete loop with the body and close its opening (Fig 1), and open positions in which the connecting end portion of the gate is spaced from the nose end portion of the body to at least partially open its opening (Fig 1);
c. a gate retainer (2+3, Fig 2) that can adopt an inoperative condition, in which it presents no restriction to movement of the gate between the closed and open positions and an operative position in which it inhibits movement of the gate from a retained-open position towards the closed position (Fig 1; [0011]).
PNG
media_image1.png
398
665
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Chu teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, Chu further teaches the gate retainer is carried on one or other of the carabiner body and the gate of the carabiner (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 3, Chu teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, Chu further teaches the gate retainer includes a clip (3, Fig 2) that can be transformed between the inoperative and operative conditions by pivoting it about a connection with a component of the carabiner to which it is connected between inoperative and operative positions (Fig 1; [0011]).
Regarding claim 4, Chu teaches the limitations of claim 3 as described above, Chu further teaches the gate retainer includes biasing components (2, Fig 2) that urge the clip to pivot towards the inoperative position ([0001] ln 5-7).
Regarding claim 5, Chu teaches the limitations of claim 4 as described above, Chu further teaches the biasing components include one or more springs (2, Fig 2) that act between the clip and the carabiner body ([0001] ln 5-7).
Regarding claim 8, Chu teaches the limitations of claim 3 as described above, Chu further teaches the clip is U-shaped (2, Fig 6), having two side arms interconnected by a crossbar (Annotated Fig 2 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
347
266
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Chu teaches the limitations of claim 8 as described above, Chu further teaches that in the operative condition, the side arms are located on opposite sides of the gate (Fig 5).
Regarding claim 15, Chu teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, Chu further teaches that the gate retainer, in the operative condition, inhibits movement of the gate from a retained-open position towards the closed position (Fig 1; [0011]); the gate being movable to a fully-open position wherein the retained-open position is between the fully-open position and the closed position (Fig 1). Because of the hooked shape of the gate retainer, the gate must be in a more open position than the position in which the gate retainer locks the gate partially open.
Regarding claim 16, Chu teaches the limitations of claim 15 as described above, Chu further teaches displacement of the gate retainer from the operative condition requires movement of the gate from the retained-open position towards the fully-open position (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 17, Chu teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, Chu further teaches the carabiner body includes attachment components which can be used to connect the carabiner to a supporting structure, such as a belt or a webbing or other component of a harness (Fig 3; [0001], [0003]).
Regarding claim 18, Chu teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, Chu further teaches the carabiner body is a one-piece component (1, Fig 2).
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu in view of Fister (US Patent 5,005,266 A).
Regarding claim 10, Chu teaches the limitations of claim 8 as described above, Chu does not teach a groove on the gate. However, the locking open carabiner of Fister teaches that in the operative condition, the crossbar (12) is received into a groove (16) on the gate (4, Fig 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the retractable trigger carabiner of Chu with a groove in the gate for the cross bar to be received to hold the gate and gate retainer are held pivoted toward the inside of the carabiner, against the action of the springs with which they are respectively associated (Col. 2 ln 54-57).
Claims 19, 22 & 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu in view of Cowell (EP 3001047 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Chu teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, Chu does not teach a closing component. However, the carabiner of Cowell teaches the carabiner body includes: a body component (10) and a closing component (14), the closing component being pivotally interconnected to the body component (Abstract) and movable between an open condition and a closed condition in which, in the closed condition, the body component and a closing component are in contact with one another at a contact location remote from the pivotal interconnection (Fig 1, Abstract), a slot being defined between portions of the body component and the closing component respectively and extending between the pivotal interconnection and the contact location (Fig 1; Abstract); and in the open condition, the body component and a closing component are spaced from one another at the contact location, thereby opening the slot (Fig 5; Abstract); there being a locking arrangement that can be operated to prevent movement of the closing component from the closed condition (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the retractable trigger carabiner of Chu with the addition of the closing component of Cowell to provide firm and secure anchorage of the carabiner without reliance upon friction between parts of the carabiner and the attachment point ([0009] ln 7-9).
Regarding claim 22, Chu teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, Chu further teaches the carabiner being used by climbers to ensure their safety with the aid of a rope ([0001]) but is silent on the details of a harness. However, the carabiner of Cowell teaches the attachment formation is a component of a harness ([0002] ln 1-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to connect the retractable trigger carabiner of Chu to a safety harness to provide the user with convenient access to tools or equipment ([0002] ln 3-7).
Regarding claim 23, Chu teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, Chu further teaches the carabiner being used by climbers to ensure their safety with the aid of a rope ([0001]) but is silent on the details of a tool-carrying belt. However, the carabiner of Cowell teaches the attachment formation is a component of a tool-carrying belt ([0002] ln 7-12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to connect the retractable trigger carabiner of Chu to a tool carrying belt to provide the user with convenient access to tools or equipment ([0002] ln 3-7).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent 5,463,798 A discloses a locking carabiner with a lock open position.
US Patent 3,008,210 A discloses a safety crane hook with a lock open position with a U-shaped gate retainer.
US Patent 5,210,914 A discloses a locking carabiner with a lock open position.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RALPH D WILKINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-6183. The examiner can normally be reached 8 - 4, M-Fr.
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, Victoria Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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.
/RALPH D WILKINSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights