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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/21/26 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1, 7 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 202018003482 to Jens (Jens) in view of U.S. Patent #9,888,761 to Kao (Kao), U.S. Patent Publication #2011/0113604 to Chu (Chu), and U.S. Design Patent #D,854,401 to Adelman (Adelman).
With Respect to Claim 1
Jens discloses a support system comprising: an adjusting strap (noting strap end portion including 5 or alternately all of 1) coupled to a harness strap (the remainder of 1 or alternately 7); wherein said harness strap is coupled to a hanging hook (carabiner 6 hangs from 7 or alternately hangs from 1 via 7, and is either directly coupled or coupled via 7); a shield (disclosed and shown in the drawings, but not separately labelled) which couples to said hanging hook which allows a user a hands-free opportunity to hold said shield; but does not disclose wherein said hanging hook comprises a planar body and a planar lip, wherein said harness strap comprises a clip, wherein said clip comprises a quick release, and wherein said hanging hook comprises an open end to receive equipment.
However, Kao discloses the use of a clip (351A, 352A) on a shoulder strap to detachably attach a shoulder strap.
Chu discloses forming a carabiner with a trigger so as to secure the carabiner in an open position such that it comprises an open end to receive equipment (noting e.g. 3 of FIG. 1 or 5), in order to provide easier access and/or easier one handed placement of equipment in the carabiner/hook.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Kao, to add a clip (351A, 352A) to the shoulder straps of the harness of Jens, in order to allow for removal of the shoulder strap for quicker removal or faster/easier donning, for repair/replacement/cleaning, and/or as doing so constitutes at most merely making separable which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04).
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Chu, to use a carabiner having an open end as taught by Chu (i.e. a carabiner securable in an open position) in order to provide easier access and/or easier one handed placement of equipment in the carabiner/hook and/or as a mere selection of an art appropriate carabiner structure to use or at most a mere substitution of one art known carabiner structure for another.
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Adelman or Carroll, to form the carabiner/hanging hook of the combination as a planar body with a planar lip as taught by either reference, as a mere selection of an art appropriate carabiner structure to use or at most a mere change in shape which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04).
Alternately, although Examiner maintains the position that the Adelman structure is planar to the extent claimed, it would also have been obvious to make the carabiner/hook structure thinner in order to reduce weight, to save on materials/cost, and/or as doing so constitutes at most a mere change in size/proportion which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)) and this will result in an even more planar shape.
With Respect to Claim 7
The system of claim 6 wherein said planar body is contiguous (see Adelman or Carroll2).
With Respect to Claim 11
The system of claim 10 wherein said shield comprises a ballistics shield.
With Respect to Claim 12
The system of claim 1 wherein said harness strap couples to a user.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 202018003482 to Jens (Jens) in view of U.S. Patent #9,888,761 to Kao (Kao) and U.S. Patent Publication #2011/0113604 to Chu (Chu) (see the rejection of claim 1 above for details of the combination of these references), and either U.S. Design Patent #D,854,401 to Adelman (Adelman) or U.S. Patent #5,038,987 to Huddleston (Huddleston).
With Respect to Claim 8
Jens in view of Kao and Chu discloses a support system comprising: an adjusting strap (noting strap end portion including 5 or alternately all of 1) coupled to a harness strap (the remainder of 1 or alternately 7); wherein said harness strap is coupled to a hanging hook (carabiner 6 hangs from 7 or alternately hangs from 1 via 7, and is either directly coupled or coupled via 7); wherein said hanging hook comprises a body and a lip (inherent in carabiners or see the structure of Chu which has these parts); wherein said harness strap comprises a clip (351A, 352A per Kao), and wherein said clip comprises a quick release (per Kao it is a quick release buckle); a shield (per Jens) which couples to said hanging hook which allows a user a hands-free opportunity to hold said shield (per Jens); wherein said hanging hook comprises an open end to receive equipment (noting Chu end having the opening which is an open end when the gate is locked in the open position); but does not disclose wherein said hanging hook is non-contiguous.
However, Adelman discloses forming a hanging hook/carabiner which is non-contiguous (noting non-contiguous wire gate); or Huddleston discloses that a non-contiguous wire hook structure (see, e.g. FIG. 3c) is an art known substitute for a contiguous hook structure (see e.g. FIG. 3b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Adelman or Huddleston, to form the hanging hook/carabiner of the combination as a non-contiguous hook (e.g. including a circular/noncontiguous wire gate or forming the main body of the hook out of wire similar to the hook of Huddleston), in order to reduce weight and/or as a mere substitution of one art known hook construction for another or a mere change in shape which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04).
With Respect to Claim 9
The system of claim 8 wherein said hanging hook comprises a non-contiguous wire (per Adelman or Huddleston).
Claims 1, 7 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #1,324,234 to Daigre (Daigre) in view of DE 202018003482 to Jens (Jens), U.S. Patent #9,888,761 to Kao (Kao) and U.S. Patent #2,651,441 to Rau (Rau).
With Respect to Claim 1
Daigre discloses a support system comprising: a harness structure (6); wherein said harness structure is coupled to a hanging hook (any of 8); a shield (1-5, see FIGS. 1-3, 5, and description) which couples to said hanging hook which allows a user a hands-free opportunity to hold said shield (see, e.g. FIG. 5 and description); wherein said hanging hook comprises an open end to receive equipment (although not shown in detail, they are apparently common hooks which have an open top end); but does not disclose that the harness structure comprises an adjusting strap coupled to a harness strap, wherein said hanging hook comprises a planar body and a planar lip, wherein said harness structure comprises a clip, and wherein said clip comprises a quick release.
However, Jens discloses a similar harness structure for supporting a shield comprising an adjusting strap (noting strap end portion including 5 or alternately all of 1) coupled to a harness strap (the remainder of 1 or alternately 7).
Kao discloses the use of a clip (351A, 352A) on a shoulder strap to detachably attach the shoulder strap, and wherein said clip comprises a quick release (it is disclosed as a quick release).
Rau discloses forming a similar support harness with a hook for supporting equipment having an open top, wherein said hanging hook comprises a planar body and a planar lip (see particularly FIG. 5, noting 19) for attachment through an opening/eye similar to that of the opening/eye of the ring(s) of Daigre.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Jens, to replace the harness structure of Daigre with a harness structure like that of Jens (i.e. replacing the single strap wrapped around the user with adjustably attached straps and separable buckles) in order to allow for faster and easier donning and removal of the harness and/or as a mere substitution of one art known harness structure for another. It would also have been obvious in view of Kao, to add a clip (351A, 352A) to the shoulder straps of the harness of Jens, in order to allow for removal of the shoulder strap for quicker removal or faster/easier donning, for repair/replacement/cleaning, and/or as doing so constitutes at most merely making separable which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04).
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Rau, to form the hooks as planar bodies with a planar lip, in order to provide a larger surface area for support, as a mere selection of an art appropriate hook shape, and/or at most a mere change in shape which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04).
With Respect to Claim 7
The system of claim 1 wherein said planar body is contiguous.
With Respect to Claim 11
The system of claim 1 wherein said shield comprises a ballistics shield.
With Respect to Claim 12
The system of claim 1 wherein said harness strap couples to a user.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #1,324,234 to Daigre (Daigre) in view of DE 202018003482 to Jens (Jens), U.S. Patent #9,888,761 to Kao (Kao) and U.S. Patent #5,038,987 to Huddleston (Huddleston).
With Respect to Claim 8
Daigre in view of Jens and Kao (see the rejection of claim 1 above for details of the combination of these references) discloses a support system comprising: an adjusting strap coupled to a harness strap (per Jens); wherein said harness strap is coupled to a hanging hook (hook 8 per Daigre); wherein said hanging hook comprises a body and a lip (see Daigre); wherein said harness strap comprises a clip (per Kao), and wherein said clip comprises a quick release (per Kao); a shield (per Daigre) which couples to said hanging hook which allows a user a hands-free opportunity to hold said shield; wherein said hanging hook comprises an open end to receive equipment; but does not disclose wherein said hanging hook is non-contiguous.
However, Huddleston discloses the use of a non-contiguous wire hook structure (see, e.g. FIG. 3c) to support equipment, and also that this is an art known substitute for a contiguous hook structure (see e.g. FIG. 3b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Huddleston, to form the hanging hook of Daigre/ the combination as a non-contiguous hook (e.g. a wire hook similar to the hook of Huddleston), in order to reduce weight and/or as a mere selection of an art appropriate hook structure to use or a mere substitution of one art known hook construction for another, or as doing so constitutes at most a mere change in shape which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04).
With Respect to Claim 9
The system of claim 8 wherein said hanging hook comprises a non-contiguous wire.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/6/25 have been fully considered but they are largely either not persuasive or are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
It is noted that some of applicant’s arguments, such as regarding the drawing objections and 112 rejections, are persuasive, and as those objections/rejections are no longer present, they will not be further addressed.
In response to Applicant’s arguments regarding the open end of the hook, see the rejection above using the Chu reference, which has an open end (when locked in the open position) that is closable via a gate), as well as the alternative rejections using the Daigre reference.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J WAGGENSPACK whose telephone number is (571)270-7418. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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 on (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.
/ADAM J WAGGENSPACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734