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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In claim 21, the relationship of maximum widths are now described. No relationship of this nature was ever established in the originally provided disclosure. Claims 22-27 inherit these deficiencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaddy (US 2019/0098964) in view of Fildan (US D410411) and Zitron et al. (US 2020/0047948).
Regarding claim 1, Gaddy et al. discloses an apparatus comprising:
a flexible strap (105), comprising an elongated body in a longitudinal direction that includes a plurality of apertures (325) defined therethrough perpendicular to the longitudinal direction; and
a link (110, 205, 210, 215, 220, 225), comprising a first strap attachment stud and a second strap attachment stud (110) and a planar plate (205), wherein the first strap attachment stud and the second strap attachment stud each protrude from a side of the planar plate,
wherein each of the first and second strap attachment studs comprises a neck portion (225) and an enlarged head portion (110, 210),
wherein the head portion defines a diameter greater than the neck diameter and greater than a diameter of the apertures defined through the flexible strap (Figs. 1A-1C as shown),
wherein the head portion of each of the first and second strap attachment studs comprises a longitudinally inward facing side (including neck 225) and a longitudinally outward facing side (215) when viewed from a rear side of the modular utility tool, wherein the inward facing side is more elongated than the outward side (Fig. 2A-2B as shown), and
wherein the elongated body of the flexible strap comprises a series of adjacently-disposed donut-shaped portions that are touching one another on opposing sides with an adjacent donut portion, and wherein the plurality of apertures are defined as a hole centered in each donut-shaped portion (Figs. 3A-3C as shown).
Gaddy et al. fails to disclose a rigid planar plate wherein the first and second strap attachment studs each protrude from a common planar side of the rigid planar plate and the elongated body of the head portion of each of the first strap attachment stud and the second strap attachment stud is multi-faceted.
Fildan teach a fastener wherein first and second attachment studs protrude from a common planar plate side (Fig. 5 as shown).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the same side protruding heads in place of the opposed arrows of Gaddy et al. The arrangement would make it easier to install the strap to the head mounts and would also limit bends in the strap that could potentially weaken the strap over time.
Zitron et al. teaches a multi-faceted stud (190, Fig. 8 as shown).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to use the multi faced studs of Zitron on the same side of a plate as taught by Fildan above. The multi faced stud would make entry of the stud within the apertures easier while still maintaining sufficient holding of the studs within the apertures.
Regarding claim 8, Fildan further teaches a rectangular aperture is defined through the plate in a location between the first and second strap attachment studs.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a central aperture between the studs of the combination device to allow free ends of the straps to pass under the device to prevent interference of the strap ends with the opposed studs.
Regarding claim 9, the combination device as modified by Fildan further teaches wherein the rectangular aperture is longitudinally centered between the first and second strap attachment studs (Fig. 5 as shown).
Regarding claim 10, Fildan further teaches wherein the rectangular aperture has rounded corners (Fig. 5 as shown).
Regarding claim 11, Fildan further teaches wherein the rectangular aperture is oriented perpendicular to a longitudinal length of the place (Fig. 5 as shown).
Regarding claim 12, Fildan further teaches wherein the rectangular aperture is sized to allow the flexible strap to pass therethrough (Fig. 5 as shown).
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaddy et al. in view of Fildan, Zitron et al. and in view of Starley (US 383,156)
Regarding claims 16-18, Gaddy et al. discloses an apparatus comprising:
a flexible strap (105), comprising an elongated body in a longitudinal direction that includes a plurality of apertures (325) defined therethrough perpendicular to the longitudinal direction; and
a link (110, 205, 210, 215, 220, 225), comprising a first strap attachment stud and a second strap attachment stud (110) and a planar plate (205), wherein the first strap attachment stud and the second strap attachment stud each protrude from a side of the planar plate,
wherein each of the first and second strap attachment studs comprises a neck portion (225) and an enlarged head portion (110, 210),
wherein the head portion defines a diameter greater than the neck diameter and greater than a diameter of the apertures defined through the flexible strap (Figs. 1A-1C as shown),
wherein the head portion of each of the first and second strap attachment studs comprises a longitudinally inward facing side (including neck 225) and a longitudinally outward facing side (215) when viewed from the common planar side, wherein the inward facing side is more elongated than the outward side (Fig. 2A-2B as shown).
Gaddy et al. fails to disclose a rigid planar plate wherein the first and second strap attachment studs each protrude from a common planar side of the rigid planar plate and the inward facing side defines a flat distal surface connected to a base via a pair of adjacent facets on both an upper side and a lower side thereof, and wherein a width of the inward facing side narrows as it extends from the base towards the flat distal surface; wherein the outward facing side shares a common base with the inward facing side and tapers as it extends to a distal outward surface via a pair of linear sidewalls; wherein, in a top elevation view, the head portion of each of the first and second strap attachment studs have a thickest portion at a midline and taper thinner toward the respective flat distal surface and distal outward surface.
Fildan teach a fastener wherein first and second attachment studs protrude from a common planar plate side (Fig. 5 as shown).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the same side protruding heads in place of the opposed arrows of Gaddy et al. The arrangement would make it easier to install the strap to the head mounts and would also limit bends in the strap that could potentially weaken the strap over time.
Zitron et al. teaches a multi-faceted stud (190, Fig. 8, 19b as shown); wherein the outward facing side shares a common base with the inward facing side and tapers as it extends to a distal outward surface via a pair of linear sidewalls; wherein, in a top elevation view, the head portion of each of the first and second strap attachment studs have a thickest portion at a midline and taper thinner toward the respective flat distal surface and distal outward surface (Fig. 19b shows inward, at a pointed end, and outward, at the opposite end, sides extending form a common base).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the shape of Starley to enable and enhance entry of the head within the apertures of the strap. The particular facets of Starley would be an obvious substitution over the facets specific to the claim language since the overall shape achieves the same goals as the shape as claimed and would perform equally well. The particular shape allows for insertion from an inner and outer direction while still allowing proper securement.
Claim(s) 21, 22 and 24-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaddy et al. in view of Fildan and Zitron et al.
Regarding claim 21, Gaddy et al. discloses an apparatus comprising:
a flexible strap (105), comprising an elongated body in a longitudinal direction that includes a plurality of apertures (325) defined therethrough perpendicular to the longitudinal direction; and
a link (110, 205, 210, 215, 220, 225), comprising a first strap attachment stud and a second strap attachment stud (110),
wherein each of the first and second strap attachment studs comprises a neck portion (225) and an enlarged head portion (110, 210),
wherein the head portion defines a diameter greater than the neck diameter and greater than a diameter of the apertures defined through the flexible strap (Figs. 1A-1C as shown),
wherein the link comprises a plate (205), including a pair of opposing broad sides (opposing ends/side are broadly spaced as shown in Fig. 2A),
wherein the plate defines a middle portion, a first portion from a first longitudinal end inward to the middle portion and a second portion from the second longitudinal end, opposite the first longitudinal end, inward towards the middle portion (Fig. 2A as shown),
Gaddy et al. fails to disclose wherein the first strap attachment stud and the second strap attachment stud each protrude from a common one of the opposing broad sides of the plate, wherein an aperture is defined through the plate in a location between the first and second strap attachment studs wherein the first strap attachment stud is located on the first portion of the plate, the second strap attachment stud is located on the second portion of the plate and the aperture is located in the middle portion of the plate, and wherein the first attachment stud and the second strap attachment stud are multifaceted.
Fildan teach a fastener wherein attachment studs protrude from a common side of a plate with an aperture defined in a plate between the studs (Fig. 5 as shown).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the same side protruding heads with a central aperture of Fildan in place of the opposed arrows and flexible body of Gaddy et al. The arrangement would make it easier to install the strap to the head mounts and would also limit bends in the strap that could potentially weaken the strap over time. Furthermore, inclusion of an aperture between the studs allows for passing the free ends of the straps under the device to prevent interference of the strap with the opposed stud.
Zitron et al. teaches a multi-faceted stud (190, Fig. 8, 19b as shown).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to use the multi faced studs of Zitron on the same side of a plate as taught by Fildan above. The multi faced stud would make entry of the stud within the apertures easier while still maintaining sufficient holding of the studs within the apertures.
The combination device fails to disclose wherein a maximum width of the aperture is greater than both a maximum width of the first portion and a maximum width of the second portion. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to increase the width of the apertures in Fildan since Applicant has not disclose that a greater width provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the narrower width aperture of Fildan to perform equally well as long as the strap is accommodated.
Regarding claim 22, Gaddy further discloses wherein the elongated body of the flexible strap comprises a series of adjacently-disposed donut-shaped portions that are touching one another on opposing sides with an adjacent donut portion, and wherein the plurality of apertures are defined as a hole centered in each donut-shaped portion (Figs. 3A-3C as shown).
Regarding claim 24, Fildan further teaches wherein the first longitudinal end of the plate is radiused and the second longitudinal end of the plate is radiused (Fig. 1 as shown).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention, to use a plated structure for the enhanced rigidity when used with an arrangement having studs on a common side. The narrow plate of Gaddy et al. would experience torqued bending that would be mitigated by the plate structure. Including radiused ends would enhance comfort and prevent damage to structures to which the strap assembly is attached.
Regarding claim 25, Fildan further teaches wherein the middle portion defines a pair of opposing planar outer edges that are oriented parallel to one another and to an imaginary axis passing through both of the first strap attachment stud and the second strap attachment stud (Fig. 1 as shown).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the plate structure of Gaddy et al. with the plate structure of Fildan for the enhanced rigidity when used with an arrangement having studs on a common side. The narrow plate of Gaddy et al. would experience torqued bending that would be mitigated by the plate structure. Furthermore, using a plate with planar edges would enhance this rigidity while allowing for the inclusion of an interior aperture that allows for a distal end of a strap to pass therethrough.
Regarding claim 26, Gaddy et al. further discloses wherein the first portion of the plate is a mirror image of the second portion of the plate (Fig. 2A as shown).
Regarding claim 27, the combination device of Gaddy et al. and Fildan further teach wherein the plate is planar across its entire extent, and the first strap attachment stud and the second strap attachment stud each protrude from a common planar side of the plate (Figs. 1-3 of Fildan show this arrangement of studs on a planar plate).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Gaddy et al. Fildan and Zitron et al. as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Starley.
Regarding claim 23, Gaddy et al. discloses the invention except for wherein the head portion of each of the first and second strap attachment studs comprises a longitudinally inward facing side and a longitudinally outward facing side when viewed from a rear side of the modular utility tool, wherein the inward facing side is more elongated than the outward side, wherein the inward facing side defines a flat distal surface connected to a base via a pair of adjacent facets on both an upper side and a lower side thereof, and wherein a width of the inward facing side narrows as it extends from the base towards the flat distal surface.
Starley teaches an asymmetric head (B) with an elongated inward facing side (D) and outward facing side (C).
From this teaching of Starley, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the shape of Starley to replace the studs of Gaddy et al. to enable and enhance entry of the head within the apertures of the strap. The particular shape of Starley would be an obvious substitution over the particular facets specific to the claim language since the overall shape achieves the same goals as the shape as claimed and would perform equally well. The particular shape allows for insertion from an inner and outer direction while still allowing proper securement.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The new grounds of rejection have been applied above to address the claim amendments.
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 MICHAEL S LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5735. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Jason San can be reached at (571) 272-6531. 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.
/M.S.L/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677