DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response to the amendment and / or remarks filed on October 31, 2025. Claims 1 – 6, 9, 10, 12 – 18 & 21 – 24 are pending and currently being examined.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 10, 23 & 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (U.S. Patent Number 7,762,440 B2) to Cook.
Regarding claim 1, Cook discloses the slidable apparel device (See Figure 1), comprising:
the base (102) including at least one pair of hooks (i.e. Upper & Lower (156) in Figure 4) extending from the base (102),
wherein terminal ends (i.e. Distal End Portions of (156) in Figure 4) of the at least one pair of hooks (i.e. Upper & Lower (156) in Figure 4) are disposed in opposed spaced-apart relation (See Figure 4); and
an elongate member (132) having an elongate member first side (i.e. Top Side of (132) in Figure 2) opposite an elongate member second side (i.e. Bottom Side of (132) in Figure 2) disposed between opposed elongate member ends (i.e. via (180 & 182) in Figure 2),
the elongate member (132) having an elongate member medial portion (i.e. Middle Medial Portion of (132) in Figures 2 & 4) disposed between elongate member peripheral margins (i.e. Upper & Lower (152) in Figure 4) extending to opposed elongate member edges of the elongate member first side (i.e. Top Side of (132) in Figure 2) and the elongate member second side (i.e. Bottom Side of (132) in Figure 2),
the elongate member peripheral margins (i.e. Upper & Lower (152) in Figure 4) of the elongate member first side (i.e. Top Side of (132) in Figure 2) and the elongate member second side (i.e. Bottom Side of (132) in Figure 2) positionable between the base (102) and the at least one pair of hooks (i.e. Upper & Lower (156) in Figure 4),
the substrate (116 / 110) affixed to the elongate member medial portion (i.e. Middle Medial Portion of (132) in Figures 2 & 4) of the elongate member (132),
wherein the at least one pair of hooks (i.e. Upper & Lower (156) in Figure 4) slidably engage opposed peripheral margins (i.e. Upper & Lower (152) in Figure 4) of the elongate member (132) between the elongate member ends (i.e. via (180 & 182) in Figure 2), and,
the pair of hooks (i.e. Upper & Lower (156) in Figure 4) reside in the space (138) delimited by the surface (i.e. via Surface of (152) in Figure 4) of the elongate member (132) and the surface (i.e. Outer Surface (126) in Figure 4) of the substrate (116 / 110) (See Figures 2 & 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
474
355
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Cook discloses wherein the elongate member (132) is sufficiently flexible to slide between the base (102) and the at least one pair of hooks (i.e. Upper & Lower (156) in Figure 4) during travel between the elongate member ends (i.e. via (180 & 182) in Figure 2).
Regarding claim 4, Cook discloses wherein the elongate member (132) is sufficiently rigid to retain the at least one pair of hooks (i.e. Upper & Lower (156) in Figure 4) slidably engaged to opposed peripheral margins (i.e. Upper & Lower (152) in Figure 4) of the elongate member (132) during travel between the elongate member ends (i.e. via (180 & 182) in Figure 2).
Regarding claim 10, Cook discloses further comprising the fastener device (172 & 174) to couple the elongate member ends (i.e. via (180 & 182) in Figure 2).
Regarding claim 23, Cook discloses further comprising an article (146) affixed to the base (158) (See Figure 4).
Regarding claim 24, Cook discloses wherein the article (146) comprises one or more of: the container, the tool holder, and the weapon holder (i.e. Storage Case for a Firearm, Extra Magazines for the Firearm, Handcuffs, a Flashlight, and / or a Radio Communication Device) (See Column 7, lines 10 – 13) (See Figures 1 & 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2, 5 & 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (U.S. Patent Number 7,762,440 B2) to Cook.
Regarding claim 2, Cook discloses comprising at least one pair of hooks (i.e. Upper & Lower (156) in Figure 4).
However, Cook does not explicitly disclose further comprising at least one additional pair of hooks.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make at least one additional pair of hooks, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 5, Cook discloses the slidable apparel device with inner semi-rigid frame member (118) comprises the plastic material (i.e. Polyethylene Sheet) {(See Column 5, lines 59 – 61) and Figure 4} shows the elongate member (132 - Semi-Rigid Retainment Frame) with the same cross-hatching to indicate same material.
However, Cook does not explicitly disclose wherein the elongate member (132) comprises the plastic material.
To the degree that it is not explicitly clear if Cook discloses that the elongate member (132) is made of plastic, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the elongated member (132) comprising the plastic material, since 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 6, Cook discloses duty belts are known to be formed from the semi-rigid material, such as leather (See Column 1, lines 27, 28 & 29). Cook further shows in figure 4 that the duty belt (100) is made of a semi-rigid frame member (118), cushion layer (120), closed cell foam layer (122) encased in an outer pliable covering (116) and the semi-rigid frame member (118) and elongate member (132) are cross-hatched indicating they are made of the same material.
However, Cook does not explicitly disclose wherein the elongate member (132) comprises the textile.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the elongated member (132) comprising the textile (i.e. Leather), since 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.
Claim(s) 9 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (U.S. Patent Number 7,762,440 B2) to Cook in view of (U.S. Patent Number 5,586,969) to Yewer, Jr.
Regarding claim 9, Cook does not explicitly disclose further comprising the sheath covering the elongate member (132) (See Figure 2).
Yewer, Jr., teaches further comprising the sheath (40) covering the elongated member (38) (See Figures 2 & 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the sheath covering the elongated member as taught by Yewer, Jr., with the slidable apparel device of Cook because the motivation only requires a simple substitution of one known equivalent elongated member configuration for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim(s) 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (U.S. Patent Number 7,762,440 B2) to Cook in view of (U.S. Patent Number 8,985,411 B2) to Mongan et al.
Regarding claim 12, Cook discloses wherein the fastener device (i.e. via (180 & 182) in Figure 2).
However, Cook does not explicitly disclose comprises the buckle.
Mongan et al., teaches wherein the fastener device comprises the buckle (See Figures 1, 2 & 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make wherein the fastener device comprises the buckle as taught by Mongan et al., with the slidable apparel device of Cook because the motivation only requires a simple substitution of one known equivalent fastener device configuration for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 13, Cook discloses wherein the elongate member medial portion (i.e. Middle Medial Portion of (132) in Figures 2 & 4) comprises the material (i.e. via material of Central (Bolt or Screw or Rivet) in Figure 4) that is more rigid than the elongate member peripheral margins (i.e. via triangular peripheral margins of Upper & Lower (152) in Figure 4).
Regarding claim 14, Cook disclose wherein the substrate (116 / 110) is selected from the group including: the strap, the belt (See Figures 1, 2 & 4), a tie, and combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 15, Cook discloses wherein the substrate (116 / 110) is the belt (See Column 8, lines 36 – 45) (See Figures 1, 2 & 4).
Regarding claim 16, Cook discloses further comprising an article (146) (i.e. Case for a Firearm, Extra Magazines for the Firearm, Handcuffs, a Flashlight, and / or a Radio Communication Device) affixed to the base (158) (See Column 7, lines 10 – 13) (See Figures 1 & 4).
Regarding claim 17, Cook discloses wherein the article (146) comprises the container (See Figures 1 & 4) (See Column 7, lines 10 – 13) (See Figure 4).
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (U.S. Patent Number 7,762,440 B2) to Cook in view of (U.S. Patent Number 5,060,835) to Payne.
Regarding claim 18, Cook discloses further comprising the container (146) (See Figure 4).
However, Cook does not explicitly disclose the closure device integral to the container.
Payne teaches further comprising the closure device (22) integral to the container (6) (See Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the closure device integral to the container as taught by Payne with the slidable apparel device of Cook because the motivation only requires a simple substitution of one known equivalent closure device configuration for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (U.S. Patent Number 7,762,440 B2) to Cook and (U.S. Patent Number 8,985,411 B2) to Mongan et al., as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2002 / 0148872 A1) to DeVolentine et al.
Regarding claim 21, Cook as modified by above lacks and does not explicitly disclose further comprising the catch device including mateable catch parts, wherein the first mateable catch part is coupled to the article and wherein the second mateable catch part is coupled to the substrate.
DeVolentine et al., teaches further comprising the catch device (30 & 31) including mateable catch parts (i.e. Plurality of (17 / 32) in Figure 2A), wherein the first mateable catch part (30 & 31) is coupled to the article (20) and wherein the second mateable catch part (i.e. Plurality of (17 / 32) in Figure 2A) is coupled to the substrate (11 & 18) (See Figures 1, 2, 2A & 3) for the purpose of providing selectively releasable attachment.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the catch device including mateable catch parts, wherein the first mateable catch part is coupled to the article and wherein the second mateable catch part is coupled to the substrate as taught by DeVolentine with the slidable apparel device of Cook for the purpose of providing selectively releasable attachment (See Paragraph 0032).
Claim(s) 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (U.S. Patent Number 7,762,440 B2) to Cook, (U.S. Patent Number 8,985,411 B2) to Mongan et al., and (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2002 / 0148872 A1) to DeVolentine et al., as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of (U.S. Patent Number 9,687,067 B2) to Calman et al.
Regarding claim 22, Cook as modified by above does not explicitly disclose wherein said mateable catch parts comprise the magnet and the magnet receiver.
Calman et al., teaches wherein the mateable catch parts (30 & 32) comprise the magnet (48/50) and the magnet receiver (48/52) (See Column 4, lines 50 – 53) (See Figures 1, 2, 3 & 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make wherein said mateable catch parts comprise a magnet and a magnet receiver as taught by Calman et al. with the slidable apparel device of Cook for the purpose of providing fastening attraction.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 31, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, the hooks of Cook reside in a space entirely delimited by surfaces of frame 132 and the hooks of Cook do NOT reside in a space delimited by a surface of said elongated member and said substrate as now called for by currently amended Claim 1.
Examiner disagrees, in response to applicant’s argument, the space (140) is indeed considered the delimited space because space (140) is between the surface (152) of the elongated member (132) and the outer surface (126) of the substrate (116 / 110).
Figure 4 of Cook ‘440 teaches the pair of hooks (i.e. Upper & Lower (156) in Figure 4) of Cook do reside and are in the space (i.e. Area of (140) in Figure 4) delimited by the surface (i.e. Surface of (152) in Figure 4) of the elongated member (132) and the surface (i.e. Outer Surface (126) in Figure 4) of the substrate (116 / 110)) (See Figure 4).
Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, Cook ‘440 still meets and satisfies the structural limitations of the amended claim language filed on October 31, 2025.
Therefore, the §102 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LESTER L VANTERPOOL whose telephone number is (571)272-8028. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00.
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 J. 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.
/L.L.V/Examiner, Art Unit 3734
/NATHAN J NEWHOUSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3734