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 .
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.
Claim 20 is 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 20 recites the limitation "the connecting strap" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 20 is using a term consistent with previously claimed embodiments but that has not been defined in the embodiment of claim 16 in which claim 20 presides.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-4, 6-9, 11, 16, 17, 19, and 20 of prior U.S. Patent No. 11,731,470. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 5, 10, 12-15, and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5, 10, 12-15, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,731,470. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, in combination with the statutory rejection above, both the application and the patent claim a connection strap system comprising: a connecting strap including a webbing sleeve having a first end and a second end and having a loop at each end, each loop having a base and a free end, and disposed within the webbing sleeve, a band of elastic material extending in a continuous loop, the connecting strap further including an attachment strap, adjacent each loop, configured to secure a portion of the band to the webbing at the base of each loop; and a peg strap having a peg-loop at each end, the connecting strap being attached to the peg strap, or a method of connecting two motorcycles together, wherein each attachment strap has two ends and is looped through the band and secured by stitching both ends of the attachment strap to the webbing; and wherein each loop is formed by doubling a free end of the sleeve back and securing the free end in place with the stitching that secures the ends of the attachment strap to the webbing sleeve, thereby forming the base of the loop, wherein the webbing sleeve and the peg strap are each formed of a substantially inextensible material.
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, 9, 10, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zemitis (US 5,205,803) in view of Rinklake (US 8,997,317) and Fincher et al (US 2011/0109062). Zemitis discloses:
With regard to claim 1 - A connection strap system comprising:
a connecting strap including a webbing sleeve 40A having a first end and a second end and having a loop 70 at each end, each loop 70 having a base and a free end (see Fig. 5), and disposed within the webbing sleeve 40A, a band of elastic material 12, the connecting strap further including an attachment strap 61, adjacent each loop 70, configured to secure a portion of the band 12 to the webbing at the base of each loop.
Zemitis fails to explicitly disclose wherein the band of elastic material extends in a continuous loop. Rinklake teaches a connecting strap including a webbing sleeve 24 having a first end and a second end and having a loop 14, 20 at each end, each loop 14, 20 having a base and a free end (see Figs. 1 and 2), and disposed within the webbing sleeve 24, a band of elastic material 38 extending in a continuous loop (see Fig. 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the connection strap system of Zemitis with the teaching of Rinklake such that the band of elastic material extends in a continuous loop, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it would require routine skill in the art to replace one known elastic resistance member with another known elastic resistance member to achieve predictable results.
Zemitis fails to further disclose a peg strap having a peg-loop at each end, the connecting strap being attached to the peg strap. Fincher teaches a connecting strap including having a first end and a second end and having a loop 4, 7 at each end, each loop 4, 7 having a base and a free end (see Fig. 1), and a peg strap 2 having a peg-loop 10, 12 at each end, the connecting strap 1 being attached to the peg strap 2. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the connection strap system of Zemitis with the teaching of Fincher so as to include a peg strap, with a reasonable expectation of success, to allow for situations requiring off-center towing.
With regard to claim 3, Zemitis discloses wherein the webbing sleeve is configured for a maximum elongation of from 3:1 to 4:1; and
wherein the band is configured to have a stretch ratio of at least 4:1 (“The present apparatus therefore provides a means for assuring that a bungee jumper (or for that matter any object) can only cause elongation of the elastic cord up to a predetermined distance. For example, the shroud length may be chosen to allow a 400 per cent stretch of the bungee cord simply by fabricating the shroud from a length of tubular-shaped shroud material four times the length of the unstretched elastic cord. At the same time, the shroud will provide continuous protection for the elastic cord by preventing wear and tear on the cord due to abrasion, foreign material contacting the cord, ultraviolet light, etc.” – column 3, lines 51-62).
With regard to claim 5, Zemitis discloses wherein the webbing sleeve is formed of a substantially inextensible material, while Fincher teaches the peg strap is formed of a substantially inextensible material (“owing line assembly includes a line 1 which is to be attached to a pulling force and a line 2 which is attached to an element to be pulled. Lines 1 and 2 are preferably straps. The lines may be of single or multi-strand fibers. If multi-strand, they may be braided, woven or wrapped.” - ¶[0017]).
With regard to claim 9, Zemitis discloses a release strap 70 attached to the connecting strap such that the connecting strap is connected at one end to the peg strap (taught by Fincher) and at an opposite end to the release strap 70, the connecting strap being thus positioned between the peg strap and the release strap 70. The release strap of Zemitis forms the loops 70 at both ends of the connecting strap.
With regard to claim 10, Zemitis discloses wherein release strap 70 is formed of a substantially inextensible material (“Apparatus 10A includes a strap 70 of nylon webbing or the like having strap ends 72, 74 engaged in partial registry and maintained in such position by stitching 76.” – column 4, lines 9-11).
With regard to claim 16 Zemitis discloses a Y-strap for connecting two motorcycles together, the Y-strap comprising:
a length portion including a webbing sleeve having first and second ends, and a band of elastic material disposed within the webbing sleeve, the webbing sleeve including a first loop 70 disposed at the first end of the webbing sleeve 40A, the length portion further including a pair of attachment straps 61 each configured to secure a portion of the band 40A to the webbing sleeve 40A at the first and second ends.
Zemitis fails to explicitly disclose wherein the band of elastic material extends in a continuous loop. Rinklake teaches a connecting strap including a webbing sleeve 24 having a first end and a second end and having a loop 14, 20 at each end, each loop 14, 20 having a base and a free end (see Figs. 1 and 2), and disposed within the webbing sleeve 24, a band of elastic material 38 extending in a continuous loop (see Fig. 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the connection strap system of Zemitis with the teaching of Rinklake such that the band of elastic material extends in a continuous loop, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it would require routine skill in the art to replace one known elastic resistance member with another known elastic resistance member to achieve predictable results.
Zemitis fails to further disclose first and second strap portions extending from the second end of the webbing sleeve, each of the first and second strap portions having a peg loop formed at respective ends of the first and second strap portions distal to the webbing sleeve. Fincher teaches a connecting strap 1 including having a first end and a second end and first and second strap portions 8, 9 extending from an end of the connecting strap 1, each of the first and second strap portions 8, 9 having a peg loop 10, 12 formed at respective ends of the first and second strap portions 8, 9 distal to the webbing sleeve.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the connection strap system of Zemitis with the teaching of Fincher so as to include first and second strap portions, with a reasonable expectation of success, to allow for situations requiring off-center towing.
With regard to claim 18, Zemitis discloses wherein the webbing sleeve is formed of a substantially inextensible material, while Fincher teaches the first and second strap portions is formed of a substantially inextensible material (“owing line assembly includes a line 1 which is to be attached to a pulling force and a line 2 which is attached to an element to be pulled. Lines 1 and 2 are preferably straps. The lines may be of single or multi-strand fibers. If multi-strand, they may be braided, woven or wrapped.” - ¶[0017]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY WILHELM whose telephone number is (571)272-6980. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:30.
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, Paul Dickson can be reached at 571-272-7742. 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.
/TIMOTHY WILHELM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614 January 9, 2026