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 .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in responsive to the preliminary amendment filed on 2/23/2024. As directed by the Preliminary amendment, claims 1-10 were cancelled, and claims 11-30 have been added. Thus, claims 11-30 are currently pending in this application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 1 and 4A-5C contain improper shading (see MPEP 608.02(V)(m)). 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 Objections
Claims 14, 16-17, and 27-29 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14 recites “a direction opposite a direction” in line 2, and is suggested to read --a first direction opposite a second direction-- in order to more clearly differentiate the two different direction limitations.
Claim 16 recites “the step of the free edge” in line 3, and is suggested to read --the stepped free edge-- in order to more clearly reference how the limitation was originally claimed.
Claim 17 recites “the step of the free edge” in line 2, and is suggested to read --the stepped free edge-- in order to more clearly reference how the limitation was originally claimed.
Claim 27 recites “a direction opposite a direction” in line 2, and is suggested to read --a first direction opposite a second direction-- in order to more clearly differentiate the two different direction limitations.
Claim 28 recites “the step of the free edge” in line 3, and is suggested to read --the stepped free edge-- in order to more clearly reference how the limitation was originally claimed.
Claim 29 recites “the step of the free edge” in line 2, and is suggested to read --the stepped free edge-- in order to more clearly reference how the limitation was originally claimed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations is: “a feature which is configured to engage” in claim 13 line 3 and claim 26 line 3.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
According to the Applicant’s specification para. [0012], “a feature which is configured to engage” is being interpreted as an aperture, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 14-23 and 27-30 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.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “can be” in lines 3 and 5 is confusing, as it is unclear whether the following limitations are required or not for the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 18, the limitation “it” in line 2 is confusing, as it is unclear as to what limitation is being referenced.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “it” in line 2 is confusing, as it is unclear as to what limitation is being referenced.
Regarding claim 20, the limitation “it” in line 2 is confusing, as it is unclear as to what limitation is being referenced.
Regarding claim 27, the limitation “can be” in lines 3 and 5 is confusing, as it is unclear whether the following limitations are required or not for the claimed invention.
Any remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 11 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuler et al. (US 2018/0140874 A1) in view of Springer et al. (US 2019/0151686 A1) and Luthe (US 6,401,715 B1).
Regarding claim 11, Schuler discloses a portable air-purifying respirator assembly (portable oxygen-generating breathing apparatus that scrubs out CO2 from the air and has filters) (abstract; para. [0105]; para. [0116]), comprising:
an air-purifying respirator (oxygen-generating breathing apparatus 100 that scrubs out CO2 from the air and has filters) (Fig. 1; para. [0092]; para. [0105]; para. [0116]);
a belt (waist strap 9) (Fig. 1; para. [0094]); and
the powered air-purifying respirator having a casing which is releasably coupled to the belt (waist strap 9 has a detachable fastening element, and so can be releasably coupled to the protective cover 7) (Fig. 1; para. [0094]), a dragging strap, the dragging strap is provided with a joint through which to be releasably coupled to the casing independently (neck strap 8 has a detachable fastening element, and so can be releasably coupled to the protective cover 7) (Fig. 1; para. [0094]).
Schuler does not disclose the portable air-purifying respirator assembly is powered.
However, Springer teaches a modular powered air purifying system which can be open, semi-closed, and/or closed circuit (Springer; abstract; para. [0118]) which is powered (control/power unit for the blower, controls, and indicators) (Springer; paras. [0079-0080]; para. [0108]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Schuler portable air-purifying respirator to be powered, as taught by Springer, for the purpose of enabling the apparatus to have and control both PAPR and SCBA units, and thereby allow for switching between them as desired to preserve non-ambient gas (Springer; para. [0108]) and allow for the ambient gas to be used if non-ambient runs out (Springer; para. [0109]).
Schuler does not disclose a shoulder strap, the shoulder strap being releasably coupled to the belt, wherein the shoulder strap is connected with a dragging strap, the dragging strap is provided with a joint through which the shoulder strap is releasably coupled to the casing independently.
However, Luthe teaches a carrying device for a respirator (Luthe; abstract) including a shoulder strap, wherein the shoulder strap is connected with a dragging strap (shoulder belts 5 connected to middle part 7) (Luthe; Figs. 1-3; col. 3 lines 23-26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Schuler neck strap 8 to include a shoulder strap, wherein the shoulder strap is connected with a dragging strap, as taught by Luthe, for the purpose of providing a structure that enables the addition of padding for improving wear comfort (Luthe; Fig. 2; col. 3 lines 49-52) and/or the addition of a shoulder protection shield to protect against heat or falling objects (Luthe; Fig. 1; col. 3 lines 40-42, 66-67; col. 4 lines 1-5).
With this modification, the modified Schuler would thus teach the shoulder strap being releasably coupled to the belt, the dragging strap is provided with a joint through which the shoulder strap is releasably coupled to the casing independently (the Schuler neck strap 8 was modified to connect to the Luthe shoulder belts 5 similarly to the Luthe middle part 7; Schuler neck strap 8 has a detachable fastening element, and so the Luthe shoulder belts 5 and the connected Schuler neck strap 8 can be independently releasably coupled to the protective cover 7 and its connected waist strap 9) (Schuler, Fig. 1, para. [0094]; Luthe, Figs. 2-3, col. 3 lines 23-26).
Regarding claim 24, Schuler discloses a protective device (portable oxygen-generating breathing apparatus which protects a user by providing them with breathable air) (abstract), comprising:
a protective mask (user interface 10 can be a face mask 110) (Figs. 1, 4; para. [0102]);
a portable air-purifying respirator assembly (apparatus including the portable oxygen-generating breathing apparatus scrubs out CO2 from the air and has filters) (abstract; para. [0105]; para. [0116]), including:
a powered air-purifying respirator (oxygen-generating breathing apparatus 100 that scrubs out CO2 from the air and has filters) (Fig. 1; para. [0092]; para. [0105]; para. [0116]);
a belt (waist strap 9) (Fig. 1; para. [0094]); and
the powered air-purifying respirator having a casing which is releasably coupled to the belt (waist strap 9 has a detachable fastening element, and so can be releasably coupled to the protective cover 7) (Fig. 1; para. [0094]), a dragging strap, the dragging strap is provided with a joint through which to be releasably coupled to the casing independently (neck strap 8 has a detachable fastening element, and so can be releasably coupled to the protective cover 7) (Fig. 1; para. [0094]); and
a connection hose, wherein the powered air-purifying respirator of the portable powered air-purifying respirator assembly comprises an air outlet port which is in air-tight communication with the protective mask via the connection hose (exhale tube 4; the manifold 3 of the apparatus 100 can have an exhale port 84 with an o-ring joint 87 to form an air-tight seal, and thereby enable air-tight fluid communication between the face mask 110 and the exhale tube 4) (Figs. 1, 4, 20A-23; para. [0092]; paras. [0127-0129]).
Schuler does not disclose the portable air-purifying respirator assembly is powered.
However, Springer teaches a modular powered air purifying system which can be open, semi-closed, and/or closed circuit (Springer; abstract; para. [0118]) which is powered (control/power unit for the blower, controls, and indicators) (Springer; paras. [0079-0080]; para. [0108]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Schuler portable air-purifying respirator to be powered, as taught by Springer, for the purpose of enabling the apparatus to have and control both PAPR and SCBA units, and thereby allow for switching between them as desired to preserve non-ambient gas (Springer; para. [0108]) and allow for the ambient gas to be used if non-ambient runs out (Springer; para. [0109]).
Schuler does not disclose a shoulder strap, the shoulder strap being releasably coupled to the belt, wherein the shoulder strap is connected with a dragging strap, the dragging strap is provided with a joint through which the shoulder strap is releasably coupled to the casing independently.
However, Luthe teaches a carrying device for a respirator (Luthe; abstract) including a shoulder strap, wherein the shoulder strap is connected with a dragging strap (shoulder belts 5 connected to middle part 7) (Luthe; Figs. 1-3; col. 3 lines 23-26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Schuler neck strap 8 to include a shoulder strap, wherein the shoulder strap is connected with a dragging strap, as taught by Luthe, for the purpose of providing a structure that enables the addition of padding for improving wear comfort (Luthe; Fig. 2; col. 3 lines 49-52) and/or the addition of a shoulder protection shield to protect against heat or falling objects (Luthe; Fig. 1; col. 3 lines 40-42, 66-67; col. 4 lines 1-5).
With this modification, the modified Schuler would thus teach the shoulder strap being releasably coupled to the belt, the dragging strap is provided with a joint through which the shoulder strap is releasably coupled to the casing independently (the Schuler neck strap 8 was modified to connect to the Luthe shoulder belts 5 similarly to the Luthe middle part 7; Schuler neck strap 8 has a detachable fastening element, and so the Luthe shoulder belts 5 and the connected Schuler neck strap 8 can be independently releasably coupled to the protective cover 7 and its connected waist strap 9) (Schuler, Fig. 1, para. [0094]; Luthe, Figs. 2-3, col. 3 lines 23-26).
Claims 12-16, 18-19, 21-22, and 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuler in view of Springer and Luthe as applied to claims 11 and 24 above, and further in view of Hede et al. (US 5,398,390).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Schuler teaches the invention as previously claimed, but does not teach wherein the joint includes a first insertion segment and a second strap hanging segment, the second strap hanging segment is coupled to the dragging strap, and the casing is formed with a slot into which the first insertion segment is insertable and lockable.
However, Hede teaches a fixing loop for a strap (Hede; abstract) wherein the joint includes a first insertion segment and a second strap hanging segment (male clipping means 12 has a tab 18 to be inserted into a female retaining means 16 and a gripping base 34 into which a first strap 42 is fit) (Hede; Figs. 1-4, 10; col. 2 lines 39-60; col. 3 lines 62-63), the second strap hanging segment is coupled to the dragging strap (the gripping base 34 is coupled with a first strap 42) (Hede; Figs. 1-4, 10; col. 3 lines 62-63), and the casing is formed with a slot into which the first insertion segment is insertable and lockable (a female retaining means 16 has a top compartment 58 into which the tab 18 is inserted and locked) (Hede; Figs. 1-4, 10; col. 3 lines 66-68; col. 4 lines 1-18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schuler by substituting the joint, i.e. the Schuler detachable fastening element of neck strap 8 into protective cover 7, for the joint including a first insertion segment and a second strap hanging segment, the second strap hanging segment is coupled to the dragging strap, and the casing is formed with a slot into which the first insertion segment is insertable and lockable, as taught by Hede, for the purpose of providing a specific fastening mechanism which is smaller and can be operated with one hand to help improve the comfort and convenience of a user (Hede; col. 1 lines 44-50, 64-68; col. 4 lines 26-33).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Schuler teaches wherein the first insertion segment has an insertion end, a resilient tongue is provided at the insertion end (tab 18 has an end with flexible spur 28) (Hede; Figs. 1-4, 10; col. 3 lines 66-68; col. 4 lines 1-18), and the slot of the casing has a feature which is configured to engage the resilient tongue so as to lock the first insertion segment in the slot in place (the top compartment 58 has an orifice 50 into which the flexible spur 28 is urged into the active position, which locks the tab 18 in place in the top compartment 58) (Hede; Figs. 1-4, 10; col. 3 lines 66-68; col. 4 lines 1-18).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, the modified Schuler teaches wherein the resilient tongue extends from the insertion end in a direction opposite a direction in which the insertion segment can be inserted into the slot (flexible spur 28 extends from the end of tab 18 in a direction opposite the direction in which the tab 18 was inserted into the top compartment 58) (Hede; Figs. 1-4, 10; col. 3 lines 66-68; col. 4 lines 1-18), and except for at the insertion end, a gap is formed between the resilient tongue and the first insertion segment such that the resilient tongue can be freely deflected outwards relative to a part of the first insertion segment spaced by the gap (except for the portion of the spur 28 closest to the tab 18 end, there is a gap in compartment 58 between the spur 28 and the rest of the tab 18 such that the flexible spur 28 can deflect out from part of the tab 18 when in the active locked position) (Hede; Figs. 1-4, 10; col. 3 lines 66-68; col. 4 lines 1-18).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Schuler teaches wherein the casing has a surface facing the belt, and the slot is formed adjacent to the surface (the modified Schuler protective cover 7 has an outer surface facing the neck strap 8, and the Hede top compartment 58 would be adjacent to that outer surface similarly to how it is adjacent to the Hede second top surface 48 in order to engage with the Hede tab 18 on the modified Schuler neck strap 8) (Schuler, Fig. 1, paras. [0093-0094]; Hede, Figs. 1-4 and 10, col. 3 lines 66-68, col. 4 lines 1-18).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Schuler teaches wherein the resilient tongue has a stepped free edge, the feature of the slot is an aperture formed in the surface in communication with a hollow interior of the slot, and the step of the free edge is configured to engage an edge of the aperture when the first insertion segment is locked in the slot, so as to prevent the first insertion segment from unexpectedly withdrawing from the slot (free end of spur 28 has a catch 32; flexible spur 28 is urged inside the orifice 50 of the second top surface 48 which is in communication with the hollow space of compartment 58; the catch 32 is to engage a stop 54 of an edge 52 of the orifice 50 when tab 18 is locked in the compartment 58 to prevent the tab 18 retracting) (Hede; Figs. 1-4, 10; col. 3 lines 66-68; col. 4 lines 1-18).
Regarding claims 18-19, as best understood, the modified Schuler teaches wherein the first insertion segment is configured such that it is deflected relative to the second strap hanging segment by a non-zero angle (the free end of spur 28 of tab 18 is deflected relative to the gripping base 34 by a non-zero angle when in the active locked position; alternatively, the gripping base 34 has an angled surface on the cross-piece 40 and/or the unlabeled bottom angled section defining the groove 38 which is deflected at a non-zero angle relative to the surface of tab 18 as best seen in Figs. 2 and 4) (Hede; Figs. 1-4, 10; col. 2 lines 55-60; col. 3 lines 66-68; col. 4 lines 1-18).
Regarding claims 21-22, the modified Schuler teaches wherein when the surface of the casing is in contact with the belt, the second strap hanging segment is kept away from the belt due to the existence of the non-zero angle (when the Schuler waist strap 9 is on the Schuler outer surface of the protective cover 7, the Hede gripping base 34 would be directed away from the Schuler waist strap 9 by the angled surface of the cross-piece 40 and/or the unlabeled bottom angled section defining the groove 38) (Schuler, Fig. 1; Hede, Figs. 1-4 and 10, col. 2 lines 55-60).
Regarding claim 25, the modified Schuler teaches wherein the joint includes a first insertion segment and a second strap hanging segment (male clipping means 12 has a tab 18 to be inserted into a female retaining means 16 and a gripping base 34 into which a first strap 42 is fit) (Hede; Figs. 1-4, 10; col. 2 lines 39-60; col. 3 lines 62-63), the second strap hanging segment is coupled to the dragging strap (the Hede gripping base 34 is coupled with a first strap 42, which would be the Schuler neck strap 8 in the modified apparatus) (Schuler, Fig. 1; Hede, Figs. 1-4 and 10, col. 3 lines 62-63), and the casing is formed with a slot into which the first insertion segment is insertable and lockable (a female retaining means 16 has a top compartment 58 into which the tab 18 is inserted and locked) (Hede; Figs. 1-4, 10; col. 3 lines 66-68; col. 4 lines 1-18).
Regarding claim 26, the modified Schuler teaches wherein the first insertion segment has an insertion end, a resilient tongue is provided at the insertion end (tab 18 has an end with flexible spur 28) (Hede; Figs. 1-4, 10; col. 3 lines 66-68; col. 4 lines 1-18), and the slot of the casing has a feature which is configured to engage the resilient tongue so as to lock the first insertion segment in the slot in place (the top compartment 58 has an orifice 50 into which the flexible spur 28 is urged into the active position, which locks the tab 18 in place in the top compartment 58) (Hede; Figs. 1-4, 10; col. 3 lines 66-68; col. 4 lines 1-18).
Regarding claim 27, as best understood, the modified Schuler teaches wherein the resilient tongue extends from the insertion end in a direction opposite a direction in which the insertion segment can be inserted into the slot (flexible spur 28 extends from the end of tab 18 in a direction opposite the direction in which the tab 18 was inserted into the top compartment 58) (Hede; Figs. 1-4, 10; col. 3 lines 66-68; col. 4 lines 1-18), and except for at the insertion end, a gap is formed between the resilient tongue and the first insertion segment such that the resilient tongue can be freely deflected outwards relative to a part of the first insertion segment spaced by the gap (except for the portion of the spur 28 closest to the tab 18 end, there is a gap in compartment 58 between the spur 28 and the rest of the tab 18 such that the flexible spur 28 can deflect out from part of the tab 18 when in the active locked position) (Hede; Figs. 1-4, 10; col. 3 lines 66-68; col. 4 lines 1-18).
Regarding claim 28, the modified Schuler teaches wherein the casing has a surface facing the belt, and the slot is formed adjacent to the surface (the modified Schuler protective cover 7 has an outer surface facing the neck strap 8, and the Hede top compartment 58 would be adjacent to that outer surface similarly to how it is adjacent to the Hede second top surface 48 in order to engage with the Hede tab 18 on the modified Schuler neck strap 8) (Schuler, Fig. 1, paras. [0093-0094]; Hede, Figs. 1-4 and 10, col. 3 lines 66-68, col. 4 lines 1-18).
Regarding claim 29, the modified Schuler teaches wherein the resilient tongue has a stepped free edge, the feature of the slot is an aperture formed in the surface in communication with a hollow interior of the slot, and the step of the free edge is configured to engage an edge of the aperture when the first insertion segment is locked in the slot, so as to prevent the first insertion segment from unexpectedly withdrawing from the slot (free end of spur 28 has a catch 32; flexible spur 28 is urged inside the orifice 50 of the second top surface 48 which is in communication with the hollow space of compartment 58; the catch 32 is to engage a stop 54 of an edge 52 of the orifice 50 when tab 18 is locked in the compartment 58 to prevent the tab 18 retracting) (Hede; Figs. 1-4, 10; col. 3 lines 66-68; col. 4 lines 1-18).
Claims 17, 20, 23, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuler in view of Springer, Luthe, and Hede as applied to claims 16 and 29 above, and further in view of Takahashi (US 5,471,716).
Regarding claims 17 and 30, the modified Schuler teaches the invention as previously claimed, but does not teach wherein the aperture is circle-shaped, and the step of the free edge extends as part of a circle.
However, Hede does teach the flexible spur 28 and the orifice 50 are round (Hede; Figs. 1, 3). Moreover, Takahashi teaches a buckle with male and female coupling members (Takahashi; abstract) wherein the aperture is circle-shaped, and the step of the free edge extends as part of a circle (circular locking aperture 35 to engage the circular locking button 22 with a locking edge 31 on its periphery) (Takahashi; Figs. 1-4; col. 4 lines 66-67; col. 5 lines 1-4, 16-32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the modified Schuler round aperture/orifice and flexible spur seen with Hede such that the aperture is circle-shaped, and the step of the free edge extends as part of a circle, as taught by Takahashi, for the purpose of providing the aperture/orifice and flexible spur with specific alternate suitable shapes for a buckle mechanism with male and female coupling members which one of ordinary skill in the art could feasibly expect to perform similarly well to the round shapes in Hebe.
Regarding claim 20, as best understood, the modified Schuler teaches wherein the first insertion segment is configured such that it is deflected relative to the second strap hanging segment by a non-zero angle (the free end of spur 28 of tab 18 is deflected relative to the gripping base 34 by a non-zero angle when in the active locked position; alternatively, the gripping base 34 has an angled surface on the cross-piece 40 and/or the unlabeled bottom angled section defining the groove 38 which is deflected at a non-zero angle relative to the surface of tab 18 as best seen in Figs. 2 and 4) (Hede; Figs. 1-4, 10; col. 2 lines 55-60; col. 3 lines 66-68; col. 4 lines 1-18).
Regarding claim 23, the modified Schuler teaches wherein when the surface of the casing is in contact with the belt, the second strap hanging segment is kept away from the belt due to the existence of the non-zero angle (when the Schuler waist strap 9 is on the Schuler outer surface of the protective cover 7, the Hede gripping base 34 would be directed away from the Schuler waist strap 9 by the angled surface of the cross-piece 40 and/or the unlabeled bottom angled section defining the groove 38) (Schuler, Fig. 1; Hede, Figs. 1-4 and 10, col. 2 lines 55-60).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2011/0126828 A1 by Wu et al. is considered to be relevant as it discloses an personal powered air purifier carried by straps and a belt.
US 5,954,250 by Hall et al. is considered to be relevant as it discloses a harness with shoulder straps, a dangling strap between shoulder straps, and a belt to hold a breathing apparatus, wherein the dangling strap has a detachable fastening mechanism.
US 4,282,634 by Krauss is considered to be relevant as it discloses a buckle mechanism in which a resilient member engages with an aperture.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACQUELINE M PINDERSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00-4:00.
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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at 571-272-5139. 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.
/JACQUELINE M PINDERSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/RACHEL T SIPPEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights