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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “without globally flattening or cinching the webbing loop.” However, this appears to constitute new matter. The original disclosure as filed (abstract, claim, specification and/or drawings) does not appear to state anything about the device itself not flattening or cinching the webbing loop when installed. Applicant is required to provide evidence of where this was stated in the originally filed application papers.
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 3 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 3 recites the limitation "the first opening and the second opening" in Line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner noting that each of the first and second opening appear to be originally introduced in claim 2, with claim 3 depending upon claim 1 and NOT claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 11,938,857 (Guerra).
The examiner first notes that the “carabiner” and the “a webbing loop” are recited within the claims as being the “intended use” of the “device”. I.e., a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Essentially, this means that the claims appear to only recite the structure as specifically seen in Applicant’s Figures 4 and 5; and any prior art references only need to essentially show the same structure as reicted and are NOT required to show the “carabiner” of the “webbing loop” as neither are positively recited throughout claims 1-3.
Regarding Claims 1-3, Guerra teaches: Claim 1 – a device (such as seen in Figure 1) for/capable of maintaining a fixed orientation of a carabiner body relative to a webbing loop, the device (such as seen in Figure 1) comprising: a flexible body (the body as seen in Figure 5 in its flexible state) having a plurality of discrete openings (104), wherein the openings (104) are configured to/capable of securing the flexible body at a fixed location on the carabiner body, and to retain the carabiner body at a fixed location within the webbing loop by locally constraining movement of the webbing loop at a single localized region, thereby preserving the webbing's natural open-loop shape without globally flattening or cinching the webbing loop (the examiner notes that there is nothing stopping the device as seen in Figure 1 from being capable of being wrapped around a webbing which is laid against a carabiner body as recited in claim 1; the device being capable of being cinched as seen in Figure 5 around both the webbing and carbineer body at just enough tightness to hold the webbing against the carabiner body without cinching/flattening the webbing), (Figures 1A-7); Claim 2 – wherein the plurality of discrete openings (104) comprises three openings (104), including a first opening (104), a second opening (104), and a third opening (104), the third opening (104) positioned between the first opening (104) and the second opening (104) and forming a connecting member of the flexible body, (Figures 1A-7); Claim 3 - wherein the first opening (104) and the second opening (104) are oriented in orthogonal planes relative to one another when the flexible body is in an installed configuration (at least Figure 5 showing several of the openings (104) being perpendicular to one another when the device is in an installed configuration), such that the carabiner body and the webbing loop are constrained along different axes while remaining mechanically independent, (Figures 1A-7).
Claim(s) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 9,382,051 (Creato).
The examiner first notes that the “carabiner” and the “a webbing loop” are recited within the claims as being the “intended use” of the “device”. I.e., a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Essentially, this means that the claims appear to only recite the structure as specifically seen in Applicant’s Figures 4 and 5; and any prior art references only need to essentially show the same structure as reicted and are NOT required to show the “carabiner” of the “webbing loop” as neither are positively recited throughout claims 1-3.
Regarding Claims 1-3, Creato teaches: Claim 1 – a device (such as seen in Figure 1) for/capable of maintaining a fixed orientation of a carabiner body relative to a webbing loop, the device (such as seen in Figure 1) comprising: a flexible body (the body as seen in Figures 6-11 in its flexible state) having a plurality of discrete openings (3), wherein the openings (3) are configured to/capable of securing the flexible body at a fixed location on the carabiner body, and to retain the carabiner body at a fixed location within the webbing loop by locally constraining movement of the webbing loop at a single localized region, thereby preserving the webbing's natural open-loop shape without globally flattening or cinching the webbing loop (the examiner notes that there is nothing stopping the device as seen in Figure 1 from being capable of being wrapped around a webbing which is laid against a carabiner body as recited in claim 1; the device capable of being cinched as seen in Figures 6-11 around both the webbing and carbineer body at just enough tightness to hold the webbing against the carabiner body without cinching/flattening the webbing), (Figures 1-11); Claim 2 – wherein the plurality of discrete openings (3) comprises three openings (3), including a first opening (3), a second opening (3), and a third opening (3), the third opening (3) positioned between the first opening (3) and the second opening (3) and forming a connecting member of the flexible body, (Figures 1-11); Claim 3 - wherein the first opening (3) and the second opening (3) are oriented in orthogonal planes relative to one another when the flexible body is in an installed configuration (at least Figures 6-11 showing several of the openings (3) being perpendicular to one another when the device is in an installed configuration), such that the carabiner body and the webbing loop are constrained along different axes while remaining mechanically independent, (Figures 1-11).
Claim(s) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0182766 (Avinger).
The examiner first notes that the “carabiner” and the “a webbing loop” are recited within the claims as being the “intended use” of the “device”. I.e., a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Essentially, this means that the claims appear to only recite the structure as specifically seen in Applicant’s Figures 4 and 5; and any prior art references only need to essentially show the same structure as reicted and are NOT required to show the “carabiner” of the “webbing loop” as neither are positively recited throughout claims 1-3.
Regarding Claims 1-3, Avinger teaches: Claim 1 – a device (10) for/capable of maintaining a fixed orientation of a carabiner body relative to a webbing loop, the device (10) comprising: a flexible body (the body as seen in Figure 6 in its flexible state) having a plurality of discrete openings (30 and 50), wherein the openings (30 and 50) are configured to/capable of securing the flexible body at a fixed location on the carabiner body, and to retain the carabiner body at a fixed location within the webbing loop by locally constraining movement of the webbing loop at a single localized region, thereby preserving the webbing's natural open-loop shape without globally flattening or cinching the webbing loop (the examiner notes that there is nothing stopping the device as seen in Figure 1 from being capable of being wrapped around a webbing which is laid against a carabiner body as recited in claim 1; the device being capable of being cinched as seen in Figure 6 around both the webbing and carbineer body at just enough tightness to hold the webbing against the carabiner body without cinching/flattening the webbing), (Figures 1-6); Claim 2 – wherein the plurality of discrete openings (30 and 50) comprises three openings (30 and 50), including a first opening (30 and 50), a second opening (30 and 50), and a third opening (30 and 50), the third opening (30 and 50) positioned between the first opening (30 and 50) and the second opening (30 and 50) and forming a connecting member of the flexible body, (Figures 1-6); Claim 3 - wherein the first opening (30 and 50) and the second opening (30 and 50) are oriented in orthogonal planes relative to one another when the flexible body is in an installed configuration (at least Figure 6 showing several of the openings (30 and 50) being perpendicular to one another when the device is in an installed configuration), such that the carabiner body and the webbing loop are constrained along different axes while remaining mechanically independent, (Figures 1-6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/10/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues:
“Creato does not disclose, teach, or suggest localized constraint at a single region of the loop while maintaining global loop openness. Rather, Creato teaches a fundamentally different retention strategy that depends on global deformation of the loop. Accordingly, Creato cannot anticipate the amended claims. (See Page 2 of the Applicant’s Arguments)”
AND
“Avinger does not disclose or suggest such orthogonally oriented openings that constrain a carabiner and a webbing loop along different axes while permitting independent mechanical behavior of the loop. Nor does Avinger disclose localized constraint of a webbing loop that preserves an open-loop shape under load. (See Page 3 of the Applicant’s Arguments)”
However, the examiner disagrees with applicant’s arguments. The examiner first notes that as discussed above, the “carabiner” and the “a webbing loop” are recited within the claims as being the “intended use” of the “device”. I.e., a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. This means that the prior art does NOT have to teach a webbing loop and a carabiner, nor does it need to specifically teach being used with the webbing loop and a carabiner. The prior art only needs to teach that it is capable of being used in the same manner with a webbing loop and carabineer as described in the claims. I.e., the prior art devices are not even required to be used in the same manner as taught in the references themselves.
Specifically with regards to claim 1, the examiner notes that the prior art devices only need to be capable of holding the webbing loop and the carabineer together at a fixed location/position within the webbing loop by locally constraining movement of the webbing loop at a single localized region, thereby preserving the webbing's natural open-loop shape without globally flattening or cinching the webbing loop. First the examiner notes that there is nothing stating in the claim as to how the webbing loop and the carabineer are located with regards to one another. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that a webbing loop could be aligned with the body of the carabineer and any of the flexible straps of Guerra, Creato, and Avinger could simply be wrapped around the contacting webbing loop and body of the carabineer and they would be held together at a pressure which does not cinch/flatten the webbing loop itself.
With regards to claim 2 there is no actual intended use/functional language claimed, so the prior art references of Guerra, Creato, and Avinger only need to teach the structure, which they do as describe above.
With regards to claim 3, the prior art references only need to teach the openings being capable of being orthogonal to one another in an installed positioned, with the webbing loop and the carabineer body being constrained along different axes. First, the examiner notes that as taught above with each reference the flexible straps of Guerra, Creato, and Avinger being installed all have their openings capable of allowing at least two of the openings to be orthogonal to one another. Additionally, the examiner notes that there is nothing stopping one of ordinary skill in the art from applying just enough pressure to hold the carabineer body to a webbing loop along different axes without cinching/globally flattening the webbing loop.
The examiner noting that if applicant positively claimed the webbing loop and the carabineer as part of the claimed invention, it would require the prior art to actually show the interacting between the device and the webbing loop and carbineer.
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 Josh Rodden whose telephone number is (303) 297-4258. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8-5 MST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Michener can be reached on (571) 272-1467. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA E RODDEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642