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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/27/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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) 1-5, 7 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 6,834,621 to O’Neill in view of US Patent 4,618,186 to Swanson.
Regarding claim 1, O’Neill discloses a restraint system (Fig. 1) for securing an article in a vehicle (the restraint is capable of this function), the restraint system comprising: a tether member (Fig. 1) having a first end (end adjacent clasp 106) and a second end (end adjacent 108) opposite the first end, wherein the tether member is provided with a tether loop (134) at the second end thereof; at least one clasp member (106) coupled to the first end of the tether member; a buckle member (108) coupled to the second end of the tether member, wherein the buckle member is configured to be receivably engaged by a seat belt buckle receptacle (126). O’Neill discloses the tether loop being adjustable, but fails to disclose the claimed details of the adjustable strap assembly. However, Swanson discloses a restraint including an adjustable strap assembly configured to connect two surfaces of a tether member (inner surfaces 36, 38 having hook/loop) to provide a holding tension therebetween, wherein the adjustable strap assembly is configured to adjust a size of an opening of the tether loop (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used hook and loop to facilitate adjusting the size of the tether loop in O’Neill because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent adjustable strap connecting element for another to obtain predictable results. In the combination, the opening of the tether loop is adjustable for fitting the tether member around the seat buckle receptacle and/or seat belt webbing (the tether loop is capable of this function).
Regarding claims 2 and 18, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein the buckle member is adjustably coupled to the tether loop of the tether member (O’Neill Fig. 1 – buckle member 108 can slide along 134).
Regarding claims 3 and 19, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein the two surfaces of the adjustable strap assembly are provided with hook and loop fasteners (Swanson).
Regarding claims 4 and 20, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein the at least one clasp member comprises a clasp fastener (106 – O’Neill).
Regarding claim 5, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein the clasp fastener comprises a hook (O’Neill – fixed portion of 106 is a hook).
Regarding claim 7, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein the at least one clasp member is rotatably coupled through a fixed loop (O’Neill – 212) on the first end of the tether member (O’Neill Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16, the combination from claim 1 discloses a method of using a restraint system for securing an article within a vehicle, the method comprising: providing a restraint system which comprises a tether member (O’Neill Fig. 1) having a first end (O’Neill – end adjacent clasp 106) and a second end (O’Neill – end adjacent 108) opposite the first end, wherein the tether member is provided with a tether loop (O’Neill – 134) at the second end thereof; at least one clasp member (O’Neill – 106) coupled to the first end of the tether member; a buckle member (O’Neill – 108) coupled to the second end of the tether member, wherein the buckle member is configured to be receivably engaged by a seat belt buckle receptacle (O’Neill – 126); and an adjustable strap assembly (Swanson) configured to connect two surfaces of the tether member (36, 38 (hook/loop) – Swanson) to provide a holding tension therebetween, wherein the adjustable strap assembly is configured to adjust a size of an opening of the tether loop (Swanson Fig. 1); coupling the at least one clasp member to an article (O’Neill – Col. 6, lines 43-45); and inserting the buckle member coupled to the second end of the tether member into the seat belt buckle receptacle (O’Neill Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, the combination from claim 16 discloses wherein the at least one clasp member is coupled to a handle, collar and/or harness of the article (O’Neill – Col. 6, lines 43-45).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Neill and Swanson, further in view of US Published Application 2017/0165531 to Lynch.
Regarding claim 6, the combination from claim 1 fails to disclose an S-hook. However, Lynch discloses that S-hooks are known fasteners for connecting two objects (Fig. 9; para. 0064). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used an S-hook in the combination because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent connecting fastener for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim(s) 8-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Neill in view of Swanson and US Published Application 2014/0305384 to Ramirez.
Regarding claim 8, O’Neill discloses a method of using a restraint system for securing an article within a vehicle, the method comprising: providing a restraint system which comprises a tether member (Fig. 1) having a first end (end adjacent clasp 106) and a second end (end adjacent 108) opposite the first end, wherein the tether member is provided with a tether loop (134) at the second end thereof; at least one clasp member (106) coupled to the first end of the tether member; a buckle member (108) coupled to the second end of the tether member, wherein the buckle member is configured to be receivably engaged by a seat belt buckle receptacle (126); and coupling the at least one clasp member to an article (O’Neill – Col. 6, lines 43-45). O’Neill discloses the tether loop being adjustable, but fails to disclose the claimed details of the adjustable strap assembly. However, Swanson discloses a restraint including an adjustable strap assembly configured to connect two surfaces of a tether member (36, 38 having hook/loop) to provide a holding tension therebetween, wherein the adjustable strap assembly is configured to adjust a size of an opening of the tether loop (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used hook and loop to facilitate adjusting the size of the tether loop in O’Neill because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent adjustable strap connecting element for another to obtain predictable results. In the combination, the opening of the tether loop is adjustable for fitting the tether member around the seat buckle receptacle and/or seat belt webbing (the tether loop is capable of this function). O’Neill fails to disclose inserting a seat belt buckle through the tether loop. However, Ramirez discloses a restraint and discloses that it is known to insert a seat belt buckle of a vehicle through the opening in a tether loop (15 – Fig. 4) and into the seat belt buckle receptacle (Fig. 5) and tightening the tether loop around the seat belt buckle receptacle and/or seat belt webbing (via adjustment of 17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used the tether loop to secure the tether to the seatbelt because it provides an alternate mounting for the tether as needed or desired. As an example, the tether loop couple be used if the buckle does not fit the particular vehicle. Further, O’Neill discloses including multiple mounting options on one tether (Fig. 13). To the extent it is unclear when the tether loop would be tightened/adjusted in the combination, adjusting it once the buckle is through the tether loop would have been obvious because it only involves choosing from a finite number of predictable tightening procedures to use (i.e. tightening before the buckle is through, or tightening after the buckle is through).
Regarding claim 9, the combination from claim 8 discloses wherein the at least one clasp member is coupled to a handle, collar and/or harness of the article (O’Neill – Col. 6, lines 43-45).
Regarding claim 10, the combination from claim 8 discloses wherein the buckle member is adjustably coupled to the tether loop of the tether member (O’Neill Fig. 1 – buckle member 108 can slide along 134).
Regarding claim 11, the combination from claim 8 discloses wherein the two surfaces of the adjustable strap assembly are provided with hook and loop fasteners (Swanson).
Regarding claim 12, the combination from claim 8 discloses wherein the at least one clasp member comprises a clasp fastener (106 – O’Neill).
Regarding claim 13, the combination from claim 8 discloses wherein the clasp fastener comprises a hook (O’Neill – fixed portion of 106 is a hook).
Regarding claim 15, the combination from claim 8 discloses wherein the at least one clasp member is rotatably coupled through a fixed loop (O’Neill – 212) on the first end of the tether member (O’Neill – Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Neill, Swanson and Ramirez, further in view of Lynch.
Regarding claim 14, the combination from claim 1 fails to disclose an S-hook. However, Lynch discloses that S-hooks are known fasteners for connecting two objects (Fig. 9; para. 0064). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used an S-hook in the combination because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent connecting fastener for another to obtain predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references disclose configurations similar to that disclosed by applicant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT T MCNURLEN whose telephone number is (313)446-4898. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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.
/SCOTT T MCNURLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734