DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 7/12/23. Claims 1-14 are pending. Claims 1-12 are rejected. Claims 13-14 are allowable.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “220” has been used to designate “internal mold line”, however in Figs. 4 and 12 the reference character appears to be indicating completely different structures.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: #200 discussed in at least paragraph [0032] and recited in claims 5 and 13; #390 mentioned in paragraph [0035]; and #210 mentioned in at least paragraph [0028].
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the Applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraph [0024] uses the term “waste belt”. Examiner suggests --- waist belt ---.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “a release latch” then recites “each release hatch”. This appears to be a typographical error.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
CONCLUSION.--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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Applicant regards as the invention. The claim recites “wherein each latch housing includes a self-centering retainer.” However, it is unclear what structures a “self-centering retainer” is meant to comprise. In Fig. 4, self-centering retainer 270 appears to be a slot. It is unclear how this slot centers or retains itself or any other structures. Applicant’s only reference to this structure appears to be in paragraph [0029]. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Applicant regards as the invention. The claim recites “an internal mold line,” and “and outer mold line.” While these terms are disclosed in the specification, and at least the internal mold line #220 is seen in Fig. 4, it is unclear if this terminology is intended to recite some structural configuration, or if a “mold line” is simply an arbitrary notional line such as an axis. Appropriate correction is required.
In view of the above rejections the respective claims are rejected as best understood on prior art as follows:
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 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 of this title, 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 US Patent 5,604,964 to Aoshima.
Claim 1. A transfer harness (Aoshima, Fig. 5, B) comprising: a three-point belt including: a waist belt with two ends (Aoshima, Fig. 5, B-1 and B-2); a perineum belt (Aoshima, Fig. 5, B-3) with a first end and a second end; and wherein the first end of the perineum belt intersects and is attached to the waist belt at a location between the two ends of the waist belt; three release latches, wherein one of the three release latches is attached at each of the two ends of the waist belt and at the second end of the perineum belt (Aoshima discloses a mechanism with two release latches as best seen in Fig. 1; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide strap B-3 with a buckle #10 as is attached to straps B-1 and B-2, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involve only routine skill in the art; In re Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co.; 193 USPQ 8); a three-point buckle (Aoshima, Fig. 1, modified as noted above) including three latch housings, wherein each latch housing receives one of the three release latches; and at least one handle attached to the waist belt (Aoshima discloses various structures that can be considered handles in Fig. 5, including any desired portion of strap members B-1, B-2, B-3, or alternatively handles on the stroller, unlabeled, attached to the waist belt via frame members).
Claim 7. The transfer harness of claim 1, wherein the three-point buckle includes at least one of a buckle base, buckle tab, wedge ramp, buckle ceiling, release flange, and a plastic deforming feature (Aoshima discloses buckles that include various structures, including at least a buckle base being the flat side of the buckle that is placed against a user, and a plastic deforming feature at #32 in Fig. 1).
Claim 11. The transfer harness of claim 1, further comprising a release flange located on the three-point buckle, wherein the three-point buckle includes a buckle tab, and wherein the release flange pivots the buckle tab to dislocate at least one of the three release latches from the three-point buckle (Aoshima, Fig. 1, #33 and 34 read on Applicant’s a buckle tab and a release flange).
Claim 12. The transfer harness of claim 1, wherein each of the latch housings include an internal mold line and the three release latches each include an outer mold line, and wherein the internal mold line and the outer mold line meet (as best understood, inner and outer mold lines are understood to be edge portions of Applicant’s latch and buckle structures; it is inherent that the equivalent latch and buckle portions of the apparatus of Aoshima can also be defined to have edge portions that are called and outer mold line and an inner mold line, approximately at #21a and #12a’ in Fig. 1).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 5,604,964 to Aoshima in view of US Patent 6,076,237 to Goorhouse and US Patent 10,104,943 to Haider et al. (“Haider”).
Claim 2. The transfer harness of claim 1, wherein at least one of the three release latches includes a web surround structure with locking teeth (Aoshima does not provide details of this structure where the straps attach to the release latches, however this type of structure is well known in the art as taught by Goorhouse in at least Figs. 7-12; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the latches of Aoshima with locking teeth in order to increase the frictional force on the straps and to provide an apparatus that is more secure) and a self-centering pyramid (Aoshima does not provide details of a pyramid structure on the release latches, however this type of structure is well known in the art as taught by Haider in at least Figs. 1 and 4 at #2d; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the latches of Aoshima with a triangular pyramid to provide a self-centering functionality which allows the buckle portions to be attached more easily).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 5,604,964 to Aoshima in view of US Patent 7,100,251 to Howell.
Claim 3. The transfer harness of claim 1, wherein at least one of the three release latches is rated with lower tensional strength than the rest of the transfer harness (Aoshima does not disclose this functionality, however, Howell teaches a breakaway buckle that provides this functionality in at least column 4, lines 4-16; Howell teaches that a buckle loaded with a large force can become difficult to release, therefore it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Aoshima with the beneficial breakaway functionality of Howell as described in Howell column 1, lines 35-40).
Claim 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 5,604,964 to Aoshima in view of US Patent 10,104,943 to Haider et al. (“Haider”).
Claim 4. The transfer harness of claim 1, wherein at least one of the three release latches includes: a triangular structure, wherein the triangular structure is bi-tapered, and a roof triangle (Haider, Figs. 1 and 4 at #2d; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the latches of Aoshima with those of Haider, including a triangular pyramid to provide a self-centering functionality which allows the buckle portions to be attached more easily).
Claim 5. The transfer harness of claim 1, wherein at least one of the three release latches includes a wedge ramp receiving cavity (Haider, Fig. 1, #1C), wherein at least one of the three latch housings of the three-point buckle includes a wedge ramp (Haider, Figs. 1 and 4 at #2d), and wherein the wedge ramp fits in the wedge ramp receiving cavity (Haider, Figs. 2-3).
Claim 6. The transfer harness of claim 1, wherein each latch housing includes a self-centering retainer (Haider, Fig. 4 #2d is considered to be “self centering” in that the triangle shape helps to ensure correct placement and connection of the male and female pieces).
Claim 8-9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 5,604,964 to Aoshima in view of US Patent 7,841,345 to Guney et al. (“Guney”).
Claim 8. The transfer harness of claim 1, wherein the three-point buckle includes a buckle base which is between 2.0 mm and 4.0 mm thick and which is between 64 mm to 72 mm wide (while Aoshima does not explicitly disclose Applicant’s claimed sizes, it would have been obvious to construct the buckles of the claimed size in view of Guney which discloses a latch component that is of comparable sizes in Figs. 13-20 and column 8, lines 6-13, specifically providing two buckles of 26.7 mm length, plus a central buckle is on the order of the claimed size; furthermore, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to construct a buckle of any desired size a change is size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art; In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955)).
Claim 9. The transfer harness of claim 1, wherein the three-point buckle includes a buckle tab and wherein the buckle tab is between 21.35 mm and 29.35 mm long and between 24.3 mm and 32.3 mm wide and between 2mm and 4mm thick (Aoshima discloses “a buckle tab” as #34 in Fig. 1; but Aoshima does not explicitly disclose Applicant’s claimed sizes; however, it would have been obvious to construct the buckle and buckle tab of the claimed size in view of Guney which discloses a latch component that is of comparable sizes in Figs. 13-20 and column 8, lines 6-13; furthermore, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to construct a buckle of any desired size a change is size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art; In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955)).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 5,604,964 to Aoshima in view of US Patent 2013/0091671 to Nishida et al. (“Nishida”).
Claim 10. The transfer harness of claim 1, wherein the three-point buckle includes a buckle base with a buckle tab which includes a triangular wedge ramp inclining at between 14 and 22 degrees (Aoshima does not explicitly disclose a triangular wedge ramp that is of the specific angle; however, Nishida teaches a similar bracket, with a similar shape and configuration, and explicitly teaches in paragraph [0017] an inclined surface that can be seen at #14C in Fig. 9, and provide a motivation to do so in paragraph [0018] stating “it is desirable that an angle of each of the inclined surfaces is 15 degrees…since the angle of each of the inclined surfaces is 15 degrees, the projection can smoothly slide on the inclined surfaces”).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 5,604,964 to Aoshima in view of US Patent 2004/0221432 to Nezu.
Claim 11. The transfer harness of claim 1, further comprising a release flange located on the three-point buckle, wherein the three-point buckle includes a buckle tab, and wherein the release flange pivots the buckle tab to dislocate at least one of the three release latches from the three-point buckle (while it may be argued that Aoshima does not explicitly teach a buckle tab and a release flange, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the latches of Aoshima in the configuration taught by Nezu Fig. 1, since doing so would have simply been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable and obvious results, and additionally because the buckle configurations of Aoshima and Nezu are considered to be art recognized equivalents).
Discussion of allowable subject matter
Regarding Claims 13-14, Applicant’s claim limitations are directed toward, inter alia, a harness with a three sided buckle and a release latch for each side, as well as specific features with respect to the shape and configuration of the latches and their interconnection with the central buckle (best seen in Applicant’s Figs. 10, 13, and 16). These features are not found in the prior art in a single reference. While various features are found in disparate references, including Goorhouse, Haider, Howell, Guney, Neshida, and Nezu. However, there is no motivation to combine the teachings of Aoshima with the teachings of these or any other prior art references in any obvious manner that would yield the claimed invention. Therefore claims 13-14 are allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MYLES A THROOP whose telephone number is (571)270-5006. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Justin Mikowski can be reached on 571-272-8525. 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.
/MYLES A THROOP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673