Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This action includes grounds of rejection not necessitated by the most recent amendment, including rejection of previously indicated allowable subject matter, thereby making it NON-FINAL.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 11 is objected to because “the accessory” in line 2 should be “an accessory”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
4. Claims 6 and 7 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 6 recites “further comprising an accessory base member” while claim 1 already recites “an accessory base member”. It is unclear if claim 6 is requiring an additional accessory base member or mistakenly claiming the same element twice. For the purpose of examination, Examiner assumes the latter based on Applicant’s claim amendments filed 3/28/25 where the accessory base member limitation was added to claim 1 without changing claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ida (US 6,425,139 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Ida discloses an accessory coupler for a belt (belt not currently being claimed in combination due to the functional language “for a belt”), the accessory coupler comprising: a main body (7/22) having a non-rotating pawl (72) that is selectably operable between a locked position (see Figure 28 as well as col. 12 lines 13-19) and an unlocked position (see col. 12 lines 6-14), the main body having a coupling system (22b,c) positioned about an edge of the main body (see Figure 21); an accessory base member (21, see Figure 21) positioned adjacent to the main body and coupled to the main body (see Figure 28), the coupling system configured to removably couple the main body to the accessory base member (see coupling described in col. 11 line 1 - col. 12 line 5); and wherein when the pawl is in including the locked position, the main body is securely fastened to the belt, the belt having a first end, a second end, and a buckle coupled to the first end, to prevent movement along a length of the belt between the first end and the second end and when the pawl is in the unlocked position, the main body is movable along the length of the belt between the first end and the second end. Regarding this last wherein clause, the belt is not currently being claimed in combination and nothing in Ida would physically prevent a user from using the coupler with a belt having a first end and second end, a buckle on the first end, and a coupling portion (like the teeth 11 shown by Ida in Figure 1), such that in the locked pawl position, the coupler would be prevented from moving along the length of the belt.
Regarding claim 2, Ida discloses the accessory coupler of claim 1, wherein the coupling system is configured to couple the main body (7/22) to an accessory base member (21) in a manner such that a gap (20) is formed between the main body and the accessory base member (see Figure 28 and col. 12 lines 2-5).
Regarding claim 3, Ida discloses the accessory coupler of claim 2, wherein the gap is sized to receive a belt therethrough (see Figure 28 and col. 12 lines 2-5, belt still not being claimed in combination).
Regarding claim 4, Ida discloses the accessory coupler of claim 1, further comprising a release actuator (74) coupled to the pawl.
Regarding claim 5, Ida discloses the accessory coupler of claim 4, wherein the release actuator is configured to secure the pawl in a locked position until the release actuator is actuated (see col. 12 lines 6-19).
Regarding claim 6, to the degree the claim is understood, Ida discloses the accessory coupler of claim 1, further comprising the accessory base member (21, see Figure 28) coupled to the coupling system.
Regarding claim 7, Ida discloses the accessory coupler of claim 6, further comprising a belt (12, see Figures 21 and 29) received between the accessory base member and the main body.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill (US 7,007,352 B1) in view of Ida (US 6,425,139 B1) and Barnett (US 2,765,109 A).
Regarding claim 8, Hill discloses a belt accessory coupling system, the system comprising: a belt (54, see “base unit belt” in col. 7 line 12) having a length (see Figure 6); an accessory coupler (58) positioned about the belt (see Figures 6 and 7); an accessory base member (56 alone or 52/56 together) positioned about an opposed surface of the belt from the accessory coupler and coupled to the accessory coupler (see Figures 5-8). Hill fails to disclose a buckle positioned above an end of the belt; a coupling portion disposed along at least a portion of a surface of the belt; the accessory coupler including a latch that is selectably movable between an unlocked position and a locked position; and wherein when the latch is in the locked position, the latch engages with the coupling portion to prevent movement of the accessory coupler along the length of the belt, and when the latch is in the unlocked position, the latch does not engage with the coupling portion to allow movement of the accessory coupler along the length of the belt.
Regarding the belt having a buckle, Barnett teaches that it was already known in the art for a belt like that of Hill to include a buckle (11) for adjustably fastening the belt ends together (see col. 1 line 59 - col. 2 line 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the belt of Hill with a buckle, the motivation being to allow a user to adjustable fasten the belt ends in the manner taught by Barnett.
Regarding the coupling portion and latch, Ida teaches that it was already known in the art for a coupler (7) like that of Hill to include a latch (72) for engaging a coupling potion (11) on a belt (12). Barnett teaches that it was already known for a latch (23) and coupling portion (12) to be used on a gear belt system like that of Hill for the purpose of selectively positioning the gear on the belt (see Barnett col. 2 line 26-33). Considering these references in their entirety, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the accessory coupler and belt of Hill with a latch and coupling portion like those of Ida, the motivation being to allow a user to selectively position their great on the belt, as taught by Barnett.
Regarding claim 9, Hill as modified above would include the system of claim 8, wherein when the latch is in the unlocked position, the accessory coupler is free to move along the length of the belt and when the latch is in the locked position, the accessory coupler is prevented from moving along the length of the belt, as taught by Ida (see Ida col. 8 lines 13-22).
Regarding claim 10, Hill as modified above would include the system of claim 8, wherein the accessory coupler includes a release actuator coupled to the latch that is configured to secure the latch in the locked position until the release actuator is actuated, as taught by Ida (see Ida col. 8 lines 6-13).
Regarding claim 11, Hill as modified above would include the system of claim 8, wherein Hill discloses the accessory coupler further includes a coupling system (100) and an accessory (52) is coupled to the coupling system.
Regarding claim 12, Hill as modified above would include the system of claim 11, wherein Hill discloses the coupling system is a through hole (100) configured to receive a fastener (102, fastener not currently being claimed in combination).
Regarding claim 13, Hill as modified above would include the system of claim 8, wherein the coupling portion is a series of teeth, as taught by Ida (see teeth 11 in Ida).
Regarding claim 14, Hill as modified above would include the system of claim 8, but so far fails to include wherein the accessory base member includes a holster. Hill discloses the accessory base member (52/56) generally includes gear (52) and also discloses that it was previously known for such gear to include a holster (see col. 1 lines 10-15). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have used the Hill system to couple a holster to the belt, where such use was already known in the art, as taught by Hill himself.
Regarding claim 1, Hill as modified above would include an accessory coupler for a belt (belt not currently being claimed in combination due to the functional language “for a belt”, though Hill discloses a belt 54), the accessory coupler comprising: a main body, as taught by Hill (58), having a non-rotating pawl that is selectably operable between a locked position and an unlocked position, as taught by Ida (72), the main body having a coupling system positioned about an edge of the main body, as taught by Hill, (see edge profile of 58 of Hill that slides into correspondingly shaped slot/aperture in 56); an accessory base member positioned adjacent to the main body and coupled to the main body, as taught by Hill (56 or 52/56), the coupling system configured to removably couple the main body to the accessory base member, as taught by Hill (see Figures 4-7); and wherein when the pawl is in the locked position, the main body is securely fastened to the belt, as taught by Ida, the belt having a first end, a second end, and a buckle coupled to the first end, as taught by Barnett, to prevent movement along a length of the belt between the first end and the second end and when the pawl is in the unlocked position, the main body is movable along the length of the belt between the first end and the second end, as taught by Ida.
Regarding claim 2, Hill as modified above would include the accessory coupler of claim 1, wherein Hill discloses the coupling system is configured to couple the main body to an accessory base member in a manner such that a gap is formed between the main body and the accessory base member (see Figures 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 3, Hill as modified above would include the accessory coupler of claim 2, wherein Hill discloses the gap is sized to receive a belt therethrough (see Figure 6, belt still not being claimed in combination).
Regarding claim 4, Hill as modified above would include the accessory coupler of claim 1, further comprising a release actuator coupled to the pawl, as collectively taught by Hill and Ida.
Regarding claim 5, Hill as modified above would include the accessory coupler of claim 4, wherein the release actuator is configured to secure the pawl in a locked position until the release actuator is actuated, as taught by Ida.
Regarding claim 6, Hill as modified above would include the accessory coupler of claim 1, further comprising the accessory base member coupled to the coupling system, as taught by Hill (56 or 52/56).
Regarding claim 7, Hill as modified above would include the accessory coupler of claim 6, further comprising a belt received between the accessory base member and the main body, as taught by Hill.
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant’s arguments filed 8/1/25 with respect to the Liu rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hill, Ida, and Barnett.
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN MATTHEW LARSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8649. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-3pm. 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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at (571)272-4544. 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.
/JUSTIN M LARSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734 11/7/25