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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “plurality of hook fasteners on one end and a plurality of loop fasteners on an opposing end” and “each of the straps are configured to snap together with another of the straps” and “each of the straps are securable together via a plurality of hook and loop fasteners” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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.
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 1-4, 11-14, 16-18, and 20 are 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.
Claims 1 and 13 recite “a rectangular pad comprising a plurality of hook fasteners on one end and a plurality of loop fasteners on an opposing end” and 20 recites “each of the straps are securable together via a plurality of hook and loop fasteners” it is noted that this limitation is not shown in the drawings and is it unclear exactly what form this is intended to take. Further it is unclear if a single patch of hook or loop material would meet the limitation of “a plurality of hook fasteners” as a single patch includes numerous instances of hooks or loops. Or if this limitation it intended to require a plurality of patches of hook and loop material. For this reason, the scope of claims 1, 13, and 20 is unclear. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that a single patch of hook or loop material meets this limitations as each patch portion includes a plurality of hooks or loops.
Claim 1 recites, “each of the straps are configured to snap together with another of the straps” it is unclear exactly what would be required to meet this claim. Further it is unclear exactly what would be considered “four” straps. It is noted that the drawings do not clearly show for individual, separate, attachable straps. Rather the drawings show four portions of straps extending from a hub portion formed by the pad portion. It is unclear how the straps interact with each other underneath the strap, or whether the four portions of straps really consist of two U-shaped straps that are attachable to one at least by the pad surrounding them. For this reason, the scope of claim 1 is unclear. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that any set of straps having at least 4 portions is considered four straps, and any capability to snap/attach those straps together is considered to meet this limitation.
Claims 2-4, 11-12, 14, and 16-18 are rejected as depending from claims 1 or 13 and therefore incorporate the indefinite scope.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torok (US 5,267,680 A) in view of Garritt (US 9,743,778 B2) and Lee (US 2011/0114683 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Torok discloses a carrying strap device (10) for use with an infant car seat (14), the carrying strap device comprising: a body component (16/18); a pad component (12); and a securing means, and further wherein the body component is secured to an infant car seat via the securing means (34/36/30), to provide infant safety and user comfort.
Torok does not specifically disclose wherein the body component is comprised of four straps that are held together by the pad component
Garritt discloses a similar carrying strap device (Fig.6) the carrying strap device comprising: a body component (18/102); a pad component (104); and a securing means; wherein the body component is comprised of four straps that are held together by the pad component (Col. 4-5; Ll. 64-3) noting the unfurled pad is a rectangular shape, and it includes a plurality of hook and loop fasteners at each end by the ability to wrap around the straps and attach to itself.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Torok and use the teaching of Garritt and modify the strap system such that it includes having four straps and four mounting points and including a pad portion that wraps around and connects the four straps because such a change would allow the device to have an additional connection point thereby allowing for additional stability of the device.
To the degree that it can be argued that the straps are not clearly configured to snap together with another of the straps.
Lee demonstrates a set of straps attachable to one another to help support a device, as well as showing the attachment between the straps using a wrapped pad (11), snaps (22/12 or 101/201), or a combination hereof.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Torok and further configure the straps to snap together because such a change would allow for additional configurations of the straps, or a backup attachment therebetween in a case where the pad becomes detached from itself or the straps.
Claim(s) 2-4 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torok (US 5,267,680 A) in view of Garritt (US 9,743,778 B2) and Lee (US 2011/0114683 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Furman (US 8,147,345 B2).
Regarding claim 2, modified Torok and specifically Garritt discloses the body component comprises four straps (noting the strap portions extending out from 104) composed of a fabric or plastics material (Col. 4; Ll. 51-52) in a rectangular shape.
Modified Torok does not specifically disclose a polyester material.
Furman teaches the ability to have a set of straps that attach to a baby seat and teaches the use of polyester (Col. 4; Ll. 46-48).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Torok and use the teaching of Furman and make the straps out of polyester because such a change would have required a mere choice of a suitable material. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 3, modified Torok and specifically Garritt discloses the four straps each comprise a front face towards the inside of the infant car seat and a back face away from the infant car seat (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 4, modified Torok and specifically Garritt discloses the body component is connected to the infant car seat with one strap on a top right, a bottom right, a top left, and a bottom left, respectively (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 11, modified Torok discloses a device structurally capable wherein the carrying strap device can be utilized by a user carrying the pad component in a user’s hand or hung over a user’s shoulder (Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torok (US 5,267,680 A) in view of Garritt (US 9,743,778 B2) and Lee (US 2011/0114683 A1) and Furman (US 8,147,345 B2) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of LeMert (US 2011/0204107 A1).
Regarding claim 12 modified Torok is silent with respect to comprising a plurality of indicia.
LeMert teaches the ability to have a carrying strap including indicia in the form of a printed message (Paragraphs 0047 and 0052).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Torok and include a plurality of indicia in order to convey a message to those nearby, or to advertise the device a suggested by LeMert.
Claim(s) 13-14, 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torok (US 5,267,680 A) in view of Garritt (US 9,743,778 B2) and Kayachith (US 2019/0328153 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Torok discloses a carrying strap device (10) for use with an infant car seat (14), the carrying strap device comprising: a body component (16/18); rectangular straps with a front face and aback face, a pad component (12); and a securing means, and further wherein the body component is secured to an infant car seat via the securing means (34/36/30), and further wherein the pad component is held by a user’s hand or placed over a user’s shoulder (Fig. 1).
Torok does not specifically disclose wherein the body component is comprised of four straps that are held together by the pad component looped around all four rectangular straps of the body component.
Garritt discloses a similar carrying strap device (Fig.6) the carrying strap device comprising: a body component (18/102); a pad component (104); and a securing means; wherein the body component is comprised of four straps that are held together by the pad component (Col. 4-5; Ll. 64-3), noting the unfurled pad is a rectangular shape, and it includes a plurality of hook and loop fasteners at each end by the ability to wrap around the straps and attach to itself.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Torok and use the teaching of Garritt and configure the body component such that it includes four straps and four mounting points and including a pad portion that wraps around and connects the four straps because such a change would allow the device to have an additional connection point thereby allowing for additional stability of the device.
Modified Torok discloses the ability to have different securing means at an end of each strap of the body component, but does not specifically disclose each strap comprises a steel clasp.
Kayachith teaches the ability to have a strap system that attaches to a car seat having spring snap hooks (10C) or finger screw clasps made of steel (Paragraph 0028).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take modified the device of Torok and use the teaching of Kayachith and include steel spring clasps or finger screw clasps made of steel as the securing means because such a change would have required a mere choice of one known suitable attachment device for another and would have yielded predictable results.
To the degree that it can be argued that Torok does not specifically disclose the body component comprises strap adjusters on each of the four straps, which allow for a length of the four straps to be adjusted in the presently relied on embodiment of Garritt, However, Garritt notes “the handles may be length adjustable as required” (Col. 5: Ll. 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include length adjustors on each of the four straps because such a change would have required the mere choice of making the straps adjustable. It has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Regarding claim 14, modified Torok and specifically Garritt discloses the four rectangular straps of the body component are placed on a top right, a bottom right, a top left and a bottom left of the infant car seat (noting the four straps as taught by Garritt, Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 16, modified Torok and specifically Garritt discloses the body component comprises only two rectangular straps, with one of the two rectangular straps being secured at the top right and the bottom right of the infant car seat and a second of the two rectangular straps being secured at the top left and bottom left of the infant car seat, with the two rectangular straps being connected in a middle via the pad component (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 18, modified Torok and specifically in view of Garritt teaches the pad (104/106) component connects the four rectangular straps of the body component in a middle of the infant car seat (Fig. 6).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torok (US 5,267,680 A) in view of Garritt (US 9,743,778 B2) and Kayachith (US 2019/0328153 A1) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of LeMert (US 2011/0204107 A1).
Regarding claim 17 modified Torok is silent with respect to comprising a plurality of indicia.
LeMert teaches the ability to have a carrying strap including indicia in the form of a printed message (Paragraphs 0047 and 0052).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Torok and include a plurality of indicia in order to convey a message to those nearby, or to advertise the device a suggested by LeMert.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torok (US 5,267,680 A) in view of Kayachith (US 2019/0328153 A1) and Garritt (US 9,743,778 B2).
Regarding claim 20, Torok discloses a method of carrying an infant car seat with secondary straps (Fig. 1), the method comprising the following steps: providing a carrying strap device comprising a body component (16/18) and a pad component (12); securing the body component around the molded edges of the pre-existing infant car seat (Fig. 4A-4C) using attachments an anchor (44/48/50); adjusting the body component straps with strap adjusters to the preferred length (Col. 4: Ll. 48-52).
Modified Torok discloses the ability to have different securing means at an end of each strap of the body component, but does not specifically disclose each strap comprises a steel clasp.
Kayachith teaches the ability to have a strap system that attaches to a car seat having spring snap hooks (10C) or finger screw clasps made of steel (Paragraph 0028).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take modified the device of Torok and use the teaching of Kayachith and include steel spring clasps or finger screw clasps made of steel as the securing means because such a change would have required a mere choice of one known suitable attachment device for another and would have yielded predictable results.
Torok does not specifically disclose the pad component to the body component by wrapping the pad component around all the straps of the body component and securing the pad component using hook and loop fasteners.
Garritt discloses a similar carrying strap device (Fig.6) the carrying strap device comprising: a body component (18/102); a pad component (104); and a securing means; wherein the body component is comprised of four straps that are held together by the pad component (Col. 4-5; Ll. 64-3) an including hook and loop fasteners as well as gripping the straps by a hand (Claims 13-14 of Garritt) each of the straps are securable together via the plurality of hook and loop fasteners of the pad component.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Torok and use the teaching of Garritt and modify the strap system such that it includes having four straps and four mounting points and including a pad portion that wraps around and connects the four straps and holds them in a desired configuration and because such a change would allow the device to have an additional connection point thereby allowing for additional stability of the device. As well as allow the contained straps and connector to be gripped by a hand in a comfortable manner (noting the orientation of the connector in Fig. 6, whereby normally held to the user’s palm would face toward the body).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 21 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that modified Torok fails to teach or disclose a singular rectangular pad that can engage four straps. Examiner notes that the drawings and specification do not make it clear what the originally filed configuration of straps is intended to be. Specifically, the drawings only show four strap portions extending to a hub (being the pad wrapped around). The specification fails to specifically show what form or configuration the straps take within the wrapped pad. Further the specification fails to teach exactly how a set of straps would be attachable to one another, or specifically if four independent straps are required, or merely four strap portions. To this degree the device of Torok and specifically Garritt is considered to meet this limitation is it engages all four of the strap portions and acts as a hub connecting them all together, similar to the configuration shown in the drawings of the present invention.
The argument toward the limitation of “each of the straps are configured to snap together with another of the straps” has been considered but is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
It is again noted that it is unclear exactly what form the “plurality of hook fasteners on one need and a plurality of loop fasteners on an opposing end” is intended to take.
Kayachith is now relied on to teaches each strap having steel (Paragraph 0028) clasps (11/12) structurally capable of attachment to loop anchors securable to a car seat. Replacing strap attachment features each strap would require the mere choice of one suitable known attachment device for another and would have yielded predictable results. And Torok demonstrates attachment of the straps to a molded edge of an existing car seat.
As noted above it is unclear exactly what would be required to meet the limitation of “each of the straps are securable together via a plurality of hook and loop fasteners” it is noted that the straps are not shown to include hook and loop fasteners directly thereon, for this reason attachment via hook and loop fasteners of the pad component are considered to meet this limitation.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW T THEIS whose telephone number is 571-270-5700. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday - Thursday.
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 at 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.
/M.T.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3734
/NATHAN J NEWHOUSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3734