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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/21/26 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because: It is unclear where in figures 1 and 2 figures 3 and 4 correspond to.
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.
Claims 9-10 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
Regarding claim 9, the metes and bounds of the terms “hollow” and “blended” are unclear.
Claim 16 recites antecedent basis issues with regards to “a hollow.”
Claim 17 is generally indefinite. It is unclear how the skirt may simultaneously be overlapping and “inside” the hollow. Also, the metes and bounds of “level” are unclear. Furthermore, the indefiniteness of applicant’s “hollow” further render these limitations unclear. The term “hollow” is not further defined in applicant’s specification and known to those with ordinary skill in the art to mean “a hole.” Applicant’s figures 3-4 appear to show the flap with varying thicknesses but not a hollow that the skirt is provided “inside” of.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 9-10 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1&2) as being anticipated by Friedson US 6,332,307.
Regarding claim 9, Friedson discloses a saddle for horseback riding, comprising:
a supporting frame (tree 12a/12b) connected to at least one covering body designed to form a sitting region (12) for a user,
said supporting frame having a front region, which comprises a gullet, and a rear region, which comprises at least one rear cantle (clearly shown in the figures),
said saddle for horseback riding having, laterally to said sitting region, respective flaps (17 figure 2) and respective skirts (13 and 14 figure 2) which are at least partially superimposed on a respective portion of said flaps (as shown throughout the figures),
wherein each one of said flaps forms, at at least one portion of a region of overlap with the respective skirt, an accommodation hollow for a portion of the respective skirt (figures 5-6 show a shape of flap 17 comprising an accommodation hollow provided below the skirt when assembled, see annotated figure 6 below), said portion of the respective skirt overlapping said accommodation hollow (figure 1),
wherein an outward-facing surface of said saddle for horseback riding formed at said skirt is substantially blended with an outward-facing surface formed at the respective flap and arranged in a position that is adjacent to the lower edge of said skirt (as shown in figures 1 and 5-6, and as at the region indicated in annotated figure 6 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
570
510
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Friedson discloses the saddle for horseback riding according to claim 9, wherein said skirt has a lower edge and said accommodation hollow is formed at least at a region that faces a lower edge of said skirt (as shown between figures 1-2 and 5-6, as best understood by the Examiner).
Regarding claim 17, Friedson discloses the saddle for horseback riding according to claim 9, wherein said portion of the respective skirt is contained inside said accommodation hollow such that the outward-facing surface of said saddle formed at said skirt is at the same level of the outward-facing surface formed at the respective flap (as previously described, where at least “pressing” on the portion of skirt that overlaps the accommodation hollow may provide such an arrangement, as best understood by the Examiner in light of the 112(b) rejections above).
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) 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedson.
Regarding claim 12, Friedson teaches the saddle for horseback riding according to claim 9, wherein said flap comprises a leather layer that is directed outward and is coupled, at a region arranged externally with respect to said overlap region, by a layer of adhesive, to a leather sheet element (this appears to describe the traditional arrangement of the flap),
but does not specify said leather layer being coupled, at said overlap region, by a layer of adhesive, to a sheet element made of inextensible material which is connected to an upper edge of said leather sheet element.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide various arrangements of known materials, in order to achieve various design preferences, for extending the lifespan of the saddle, etc.; since it has been held that a prima facie obviousness exists where the selection of a known material is based on its suitability for its intended use and all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention; as best understood by the Examiner.
Regarding claim 13, Friedson teaches the saddle for horseback riding according to claim 12, wherein said sheet element made of inextensible material is connected to the upper edge of said leather sheet element at an inward-facing surface thereof (see claim 12 rejection as best understood by the Examiner).
Regarding claim 14, Friedson teaches the saddle for horseback riding according to claim 12, wherein said sheet element made of inextensible material is connected to the upper edge of said leather sheet element at an outward-facing surface (see claim 12 rejection, as best understood by the Examiner).
Regarding claim 15, Friedson teaches the saddle for horseback riding according to claim 12, wherein said skirt comprises a leather layer which is directed outward and is coupled, by a layer of adhesive, to the leather sheet element (see claim 12 rejection, as best understood by the Examiner).
Regarding claim 16, Friedson teaches the saddle for horseback riding according to claim 12, wherein said sheet element made of inextensible material is connected to the upper edge of said leather sheet element to provide a hollow or a step (see claim 12 rejection, as best understood by the Examiner).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/21/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments directed towards the drawing objections of figures 3-4 are not persuasive at least because no arguments were presented for these figures.
Applicant’s arguments directed towards the 102 rejection of claim 9 are not convincing at least because applicant has not explained why the cutout of flap 17 shown in figures 5-6 does not teach the hollow as recited as described in the rejection above, etc.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-7889. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:00am to 4:30pm MST.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached at (571)272-6886. 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.
/JESSICA B WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644