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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/16/25 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 13, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bjelde et al. (US 9,587,908 B2) in view of McCoy (US 5,009,022 A) and Smith et al. (US 9,328,992 B1).
Regarding claim 21, Bjelde discloses a weapon sling system, comprising: a weapon harness (10, Figures 3-4) including a weapon retention strap (25/75) having (i) a first end connected to the weapon harness (via 70) and (ii) a second end connected to a first connector (80).
Bjelde fails to disclose a retraction lanyard including a retracting reel and a lanyard cord wherein (i) the retracting reel is adapted to be carried at a user's waist and (ii) the lanyard cord has a distal end connected to a second connector.
McCoy teaches that it was already known in the art to utilize a retraction lanyard (22) between a user’s waist and a connector (16/18) on a firearm, the retraction lanyard serving to help increase shooting accuracy, ensure return of the weapon to a home position at a front side of the user when the weapon is released by the user, and increase difficulty for another to take the weapon from the user (see McCoy col. 1 line 61 - col. 2 line 17). McCoy shows the lanyard attached to the butt of a pistol but Smith (see Figure 11) shows it was also known in the art to attach a waist mounted stabilizing retraction lanyard like that of McCoy to the forearm (14) of a rifle like that used by Bjelde in order to stabilize the rifle during shooting (see Smith col. 10 lines 25-58).
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 a user of the Bjelde weapon sling with a retracting lanyard reel mounted at their waist and a connector on the firearm, as taught by McCoy, the connector being located along a forearm of the rifle, as taught by Smith, the motivation being to increase shooting accuracy, ensure return of the weapon to a home position at a front side of the user when the weapon is released by the user, and increase difficulty for another to take the weapon from the user, as taught by McCoy and Smith.
This modified Bjelde sling system would be characterized by (a) the first connector being adapted to connect to the weapon (weapon not currently being claimed in combination due to functional language “adapted to connect”)at a first connection point rearward of a trigger of the weapon, as taught by Bjelde, (b) the second connector being adapted to connect to the weapon at a second connection point forward of the trigger of the weapon, as taught by Smith, and (c) wherein resulting two point connection with the weapon is adapted to (i) ensure return of the weapon to a home position, barrel end down, at a front side of the user when the weapon is released by the user and (ii) increase difficulty to take the weapon from the user, as taught by McCoy and Smith.
Regarding claim 2, Bjelde as modified above would include the weapon sling system of claim 21, wherein Bjelde discloses the weapon harness includes a shoulder strap (15) connected to a torso strap (115).
Regarding claim 3, Bjelde as modified above would include the weapon sling system of claim 2, wherein Bjelde discloses the weapon retention strap is connected to the shoulder strap (see Figures 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 6, Bjelde as modified above would include the weapon sling system of claim 2, wherein Bjelde discloses the torso strap (115) extends fully around a torso of the user (see Figures 3 and 4).
Regarding 22, Bjelde as modified above would include a weapon system, comprising: a weapon harness including a weapon retention strap, as taught by Bjelde (25), having (i) a first end connected to the weapon harness, as taught by Bjelde (at 70), and (ii) a second end connected to a first connector, as taught by Bjelde (80); and a retracting lanyard including a retracting reel and a lanyard cord, as taught by McCoy (reel 28 and cord 22), wherein (i) the retracting reel is adapted to be carried at a user's waist, as taught by McCoy (see belt 30), and (ii) the lanyard cord has a distal end connected to a second connector, as taught by McCoy (see 16/18); a weapon including a first connection point, as taught by Bjelde (see weapon in Figure 4D with connection point 160), rearward of a trigger, and a second connection point, forward of the trigger, as taught by Smith (along forearm 14), wherein (a) the first connector is connected to the weapon at the first connection point, as taught by Bjelde, (b) the second connector is connected to the weapon at the second connection point, as collectively taught by McCoy and Smith, and (c) wherein resulting two point connection with the weapon is adapted to (i) ensure return of the weapon to a home position, barrel end down, at a front side of the user when the weapon is released by the user and (ii) increase difficulty to take the weapon from the user, as collectively taught by McCoy and Smith.
Regarding claim 9, Bjelde as modified above would include the weapon system of claim 22, wherein Bjelde discloses the weapon harness includes a shoulder strap (15) connected to a torso strap (115).
Regarding claim 10, Bjelde as modified above would include the weapon sling system of claim 9, wherein Bjelde discloses the weapon retention strap is connected to the shoulder strap (see Figures 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 13, Bjelde as modified above would include the weapon sling system of claim 9, wherein Bjelde discloses the torso strap (115) extends fully around a torso of the user (see Figures 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 23, the normal operation and use of the modified Bjelde sling system would include a method of carrying and securing a weapon, comprising: securing a weapon harness about a shoulder and torso of a user, as taught by Bjelde (see Figure 4A); securing a retracting reel of a retracting lanyard, as taught by McCoy (28), at a waist of the user, as collectively taught by McCoy and Smith; connecting a weapon retention strap of the weapon harness to the weapon at a first point rearward of a trigger of the weapon, as taught by Bjelde (see Figure 4D); connecting a distal end of a lanyard cord of the retracting lanyard to the weapon, as collectively taught by McCoy and Smith, at a second point forward of the trigger of the weapon, as taught by Smith; providing two point connection of the weapon with the user (inherent result of the combination being two connections), making it more difficult for another to take the weapon from the user, as taught by McCoy; and returning, by combined action of the weapon retention strap and the retracting lanyard, the weapon to a home position, barrel end down, at a side of the user when the weapon is released by the user, as would be the case when a rifle is hung from the retention strap positioned as shown in Figure 4A of Bjelde.
6. Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bjelde et al. (US 9,587,908 B2) in view of McCoy (US 5,009,022 A) and Smith et al. (US 9,328,992 B1), further in view of Carlo (US 5,425,485 A).
Regarding claim 7, Bjelde as modified above would include the weapon sling system of claim 2, but so far fails to include wherein the torso strap includes a first end having a first connecting clip and a second end having a second connecting clip.
Regarding claim 14, Bjelde as modified above would include the weapon sling system claim 9, but so far fails to include wherein the torso strap includes a first end having a first connecting clip and a second end having a second connecting clip.
Bjelde shows the torso strap using mating buckle halves (120) on each end rather than first and second connecting clips. Bjelde does disclose that other fasteners may be used (see col. 7 lines 46-52). Carlo shows that it was also known in the art to form a torso strap (10) in a loop (see Figure 4) using connecting clips (14,18) at the ends thereof (see Figure 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 replaced the buckle of Bjelde with another known fastener, as considered by Bjelde himself, in this case a pair of clips, where clips were already known to be suitable for such use, as shown by Carlo.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant’s arguments filed 12/16/25 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
8. Applicant has argued on Pages 5-6 of the Remarks that McCoy fails to disclose a “second” connector because McCoy only discloses a single point connector (16/18) on the firearm. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). When used in the combination set forth above, the single connector (16/18) of McCoy becomes a “second connector” within the modified Bjelde sling system.
9. Applicant has argued on Pages 7-9 of the Remarks that no single reference of the applied art teaches a two point connection as claimed and that Examiner has relied upon improper hindsight reasoning for combining the references. It must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The rejections above take into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed and the specific teachings found in the prior art. See underlined section of Paragraph 5 reproduced below.
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 a user of the Bjelde weapon sling with a retracting lanyard reel mounted at their waist and a connector on the firearm, as taught by McCoy, the connector being located along a forearm of the rifle, as taught by Smith, the motivation being to increase shooting accuracy, ensure return of the weapon to a home position at a front side of the user when the weapon is released by the user, and increase difficulty for another to take the weapon from the user, as taught by McCoy and Smith.
While no single reference teaches both connections, the references collectively teach that both connections were known and useful for their respective functions and it would have been obvious to have brought these individually known connections together in a single system so that a user could realized the compounded benefits of both connections. The proposed combination is nothing more than a combination of known prior art elements to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
10. Applicant has argued on Pages 7-8 of the Remarks that Smith teaches the retracting reel attached to the weapon and the lanyard attached to the user’s waist and thus teaches away from the claimed invention which is essentially the opposite of this. First, to teach one thing is not to teach away from everything else. Second, Smith is only being relied upon for the location of the weapon connector. It is McCoy who is relied upon for teaching the retracting reel attached to the user’s waist and the lanyard connector attached to the weapon.
11. Applicant has argued on Page 8 of the Remarks that Smith would be rendered unsatisfactory for its intended use by the proposed modifications. Examiner notes that the rejections effectively modify Bjelde by adding teachings from McCoy and Smith. Smith is not the primary reference and is not being modified.
Conclusion
12. 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 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.
/JUSTIN M LARSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734 2/11/26