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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I in the reply filed on 2/11/26 is acknowledged.
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 1-8 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.
Claim 1 recites the webbing “is integrally formed in the webbing insertion slot”, however, these appear to be obviously distinct structures (see elements 1-3 in fig. 5).
Claim 1 recites “the outer end of the bump is integrally provided with a compressing edge”, however, these appear to be obviously distinct structures (see Figs. 5-6, elements 6-9).
Claim 4 recites “the right side of the webbing insertion slot is led out of the hard rubber part” is not understood.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the second reinforcing edge" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The remaining claims are rejected as depending from a rejected claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuykendall, U.S. Patent 5,577,395 in view of French, U.S. Patent 8,061,236.
Regarding Claim 1, insofar as the claim is understood (see 112 rejection above) Kuykendall teaches:
A webbing (1) a plastic part (12)…
the bottom side face of the plastic part integrally provided with a webbing insertion slot (28) and the left end of the webbing formed in the webbing insertion slot (see 112 rejection above, see Figs. 3-6);
the bottom side face of the plastic part is integrally provided with several positioning cylinders (40)…a bump (36)…
the bump is provided with a compressing edge (see Fig. 6), the compressing edge is mounted in the webbing insertion slot in a clearance-fit manner, the compressing edge compresses the left edge of the webbing, and the compressing edge is positioned at the right side of the several positioning cylinders.
Kuykendall does not teach:
A hard rubber part
The right side of the positioning cylinder is provided with a slot, a slider is mounted in
the positioning cylinder in a sliding-fit manner, a threaded hole is formed on the slider, a bump is formed at the right side of the bottom end of the slider, and the bump is mounted in the slot in a sliding-fit manner.
French teaches:
A poisoning structure featuring a hole (204) with a slot (206), a slider (300) mounted in the positioning structure, a threaded hole formed in the slider and a bump (see hexagonal apexes which are interpreted as “bumps”) mounted in the slot in a sliding fit manner.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the plastic part of Kuykendall as being comprised of hard rubber because these materials are considered known equivalents and the hard rubber would provide greater ductility than plastic.
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the positioning cylinders of Kuykendall with the teachings of French, such that the claim limitations would be rendered obvious, because the slider structure would permit the use of threaded fasteners which provided additional security for the fastener which reduce the likelihood of tampering.
Regarding Claim 3, in the instant combination, Kuykendall teaches:
The left edge of the webbing is fixedly provided with a first reinforcing edge disposed on the top side of the webbing and the reinforcing edge is clamped at the left side of the compressing edge (see elements 63 and note they are off center laterally and longitudinally and can therefore be interpreted as at the edge).
Regarding Claim 4, insofar as the claim is understood, Kuykendall teaches:
The right side of the webbing insertion slot is led out of the hard rubber part (insofar as this is understood, see Fig. 2), the frontside and the rear side of the webbing insertion slot each are provided with a flange, and the webbing is arranged between the two flanges in a clearance-fit manner (see below for flanges).
PNG
media_image1.png
320
431
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, in the instant combination, Kuykendall teaches:
A common webbing (1).
Regarding Claim 7, in the instant combination, Kuykendall teaches:
The bottom side face of the hard rubber part is provided with a concave groove (see below), the positioning cylinder is integrally formed in the concave groove, the left edge of the webbing insertion slot is led into the concave groove, and the second reinforcing edges (see below) are integrally formed in the concave groove.
PNG
media_image2.png
341
477
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuykendall-French as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Badrenas Buscart, U.S. Patent 6,622,348.
The instant combination is silent with regard to the compressing edge provided with several anti-slip teeth equidistantly arrayed.
Badrenas Buscart teaches a webbing device with compressing edges with several anti-slip teeth equidistantly arrayed (see Fig. 1, elements 9 9’).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the compressing edge with several anti-slip teeth equidistantly arrayed because that would increase the friction of the compressing edge.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuykendall-French as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chapman, U.S. Patent 9,540,025.
All the aspects of the instant invention are disclosed above but for several second reinforcing edges integrally formed between the positioning cylinder and the bottom side face of the hard rubber part with the reinforcing edge being mutually criss-crossed.
Chapman teaches criss-crossed reinforcing ribs (see Fig. 2, elements around 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the instant invention with the criss-crossed reinforcing ribs because that would stiffen the device against damage.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuykendall-French as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Larose, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0146401.
All the aspects of the instant invention are disclosed above but for chamfers on a periphery of the top side of the hard rubber part.
Larose teaches a webbing connection with a periphery featuring chamfers (see below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Kuykendall-French with chamfers as taught by Larose because the chamfers would reduce wear-and-tear on the webbing.
PNG
media_image3.png
279
580
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5218. The examiner can normally be reached IFP, Typically M-Th, 8:00-6:00, regular Fr availability.
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.J.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677