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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Status
Claims 8-11, 13-18, and 26 are pending in this application. Claims 8, 13-18, and 26 are amended. Claims 1-7, 12, and 19-25 are canceled.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner would welcome an interview to clarify any of the various rejections seen below in order to expedite prosecution of the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see arguments/remarks, filed March 16, 2026, with respect to objections to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to the specification have been withdrawn. Applicant has canceled claims reciting terms cited in the objections.
Applicant’s arguments, see arguments/remarks, filed March 16, 2026, with respect to objections to the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to the drawings have been withdrawn. Applicant has canceled claims reciting terms cited in the objections.
Applicant’s arguments, see arguments/remarks, filed March 16, 2026, with respect to objections to claims 1-2, 23, and 26 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to claims 1-2, 23, and 26 have been withdrawn. Applicant has canceled claims 1-2 and 23, and amended claim 26 to correct the minor informality.
Applicant’s arguments, see arguments/remarks, filed March 16, 2026, with respect to rejections of claims 4-5 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-2, and 23 have been withdrawn. Applicant has canceled claims 1-2 and 23.
Applicant’s arguments, see arguments/remarks, filed March 16, 2026, with respect to rejections of claims 1-11 and 16-26 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-11 and 16-26 have been withdrawn. Applicant has canceled claims 1-7, 12, and 19-25, and incorporated the allowable subject matter of claim 12 into independent claim 8.
Applicant has failed to address the rejections of claims 8-18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in their arguments/remarks or by amendment. These rejections stand in effect; see below.
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 8-11, 13-18, and 26 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.
Regarding claim 8, applicant has failed to address the rejection in the previous action either by argument or amendment. We repeat the text of that rejection verbatim:
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “bump” in claims 8-13 is used by the claim to mean “connector with complex geometry,” while the accepted meaning is “rounded protrusion.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Applicant’s “bump” is depicted as 281 in fig. 8. This structure, a flanged connector with a beveled edge and an overhanging corner, is not a bump according to the usual meaning of the word. For purposes of examination on the merits in this office action, we consider the claimed bumps to constitute any sort of protrusions whatsoever that can fit into holes or apertures.
We cannot provide a recommended means of overcoming this rejection, as the structural features of the claimed bumps appear to be important to the invention. It is possible an allowable form of applicant’s invention may exist with no recitation of the disclosed bumps in the claims.
Claims 9-11, 13-18, and 26 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 8.
Claims 13-15 are further rejected because as amended, they recite, “The adjustable carrying device according to claim 1”. However, claim 1 was canceled. While it might be supposed that these claims were intended to be reparented to claim 8, they could depend from other claims, and so their incorrectly specified scope is also a matter of indefiniteness. While this rejection alone would motivate an attempt to present an Examiner’s Amendment to correct the problem, in the light of the rejection of claim 8 above for which an obvious amendment is not immediately apparent, we must proceed to a final rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Claims 9-11, 13-18, and 26 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding independent claim 8, applicant has canceled claim 12, indicated in the previous office action as containing potentially allowable subject matter, and incorporated the limitations into claim 8. To reprise the reasons for allowability presented in the previous office action, canceled claim 12’s involved arrangement of an additional fixed side wall, connecting portion, holding opening and bump is structurally incompatible with the references used to reject independent parent claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103. Further combination with other references to incorporate the claimed features would result in unmotivated and arbitrary complexity, giving the appearance of design by hindsight in the resulting combination, an indicator for nonobviousness. As references Huegler and Torazawa were found to be indispensable in the rejection of claim 8 in the previous office action it follows that the arrangements of canceled claim 12 now incorporated into parent claim 8 were neither found nor taught nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record. Dependent claims 9-11, 13-18, and 26 inherit the potential allowability of claim 8.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS whose telephone number is (703)756-1828. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0830-1700.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571) 270-5565. 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.
/ERNESTO A SUAREZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3655A
/L.R.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights