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 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 1-18 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.
In Claim 1, lines 10-15 recite limitations directed toward the relative distances between certain surfaces of the first and second cross members, described as “a maximum distance” and “an overlap distance”. The “maximum distance” is defined between “said lower surface of said second cross member” and “said upper surface of said first cross member”, however, there are multiple (apparently four) lower surfaces on the second cross member (see drawing selection below). Since the “maximum distance” is a limitation which carries weight, the definition must be clear and understood. Examiner notes that the figures are very well enumerated and annotated, however, none of the surfaces are enumerated or annotated. The limitations “upper” and “lower” are not required to be interpreted as “uppermost” or “lowermost”, as best the Examiner can discern. The specification provides consistent discussion regarding the “distance”, but does not define the “distance” in the same manner as the claims. In light of the specification and the figures, it appears that the “distance” at issue is limited to roughly no more than one “thickness” of the “tension element”.
PNG
media_image1.png
404
671
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 8 recites “a rear surface” on “said first cross member”, but this structure appears to have been previously claimed in Claim 1.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “said sliding element further comprising a pair of capturing faces in which said sliding element is constrained to slide”. It is not entirely clear how the sliding element can be constrained to slide within an element of itself, the capturing faces.
Claims 2-7 and 9-18 are rejected as depending from rejected claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suh, U.S. Patent 5,331,726.
Regarding Claim 1, insofar as the claim is understood, Suh teaches:
A frame (1) comprising a first cross member (6), said first cross member being oriented
perpendicular to said tension axis (see fig. 2(A));
said first cross member having an upper surface, a lower surface, and a rear surface (see below);
a sliding element (8) comprising a second cross member (see below), said second cross
member being oriented perpendicular to said tension axis;
said second cross member having an upper surface and a lower surface (see fig. 3);
said sliding element being constrained to slide with respect to said frame in said tension
axis (see element 4);
said sliding element being further constrained such that said lower surface of said
second cross member has a maximum distance to said upper surface of said first cross member in a direction perpendicular to said width of said flexible tension element (see below);
said sliding element being further constrained such that said lower surface of said
second cross member overlaps said upper surface of said first cross member in an overlap distance parallel to said tension axis (see below).
PNG
media_image2.png
620
364
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
303
519
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Suh teaches:
Said maximum distance being at least said thickness of said flexible tension element
(see Fig. 2(B)).
Regarding Claim 6, Suh teaches:
Said frame further comprising a third cross member (see below).
PNG
media_image4.png
460
512
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, Suh teaches:
Said third cross member being positioned such that when said flexible tension element
is wrapped around said third cross member, said sliding element is constrained from being removed from said frame (see figs 2(A), (B)).
Regarding Claim 17, Suh teaches:
Said flexible tension element being a web (see 11, note width of element 1 which
indicates webbing).
Claim(s) 1, 3, 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Merrick, U.S. Patent 9,022,483.
Regarding Claim 1, insofar as the claim is understood, Merrick teaches:
A frame (230) comprising a first cross member (234), said first cross member being
oriented perpendicular to said tension axis (see Figs. 2A, B);
said first cross member having an upper surface, a lower surface, and a rear surface (see
below);
a sliding element (240) comprising a second cross member (244), said second cross
member being oriented perpendicular to said tension axis;
said second cross member having an upper surface and a lower surface (see fig. 3);
said sliding element being constrained to slide with respect to said frame in said tension
axis (see 252a, b);
said sliding element being further constrained such that said lower surface of said
second cross member has a maximum distance to said upper surface of said first cross member in a direction perpendicular to said width of said flexible tension element (see below);
said sliding element being further constrained such that said lower surface of said
second cross member overlaps said upper surface of said first cross member in an overlap distance parallel to said tension axis (see below).
PNG
media_image5.png
395
590
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Merrick teaches:
The maximum distance being no more than said thickness of said flexible tension
element (see drawing selection above).
Regarding Claim 8, Merrick teaches:
First cross member having a rear surface (see below);
the second cross member having a lip (see below) such that said lip applies force to said
flexible tension element against said rear surface when said flexible tension element is pulled in said tension axis (see Figs. 4A, B).
PNG
media_image6.png
249
329
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 10, insofar as the claim is understood (see 112 rejection), Merrick teaches:
The frame (230) further comprising a pair of guiding faces (see Fig. 3, see below) and
said sliding element (240) further comprising a pair of capturing faces (see Fig. 3, see below) in which said sliding element is constrained to slide.
PNG
media_image7.png
323
446
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McMurray, U.S. Patent 3,404,436.
Regarding Claim 1, insofar as the claim is understood, McMurray teaches:
A frame (10) comprising a first cross member (20), said first cross member being
oriented perpendicular to said tension axis (see Figs. 3-5);
said first cross member having an upper surface, a lower surface, and a rear surface (see
below);
a sliding element (12) comprising a second cross member (34), said second cross
member being oriented perpendicular to said tension axis;
said second cross member having an upper surface and a lower surface (see below);
said sliding element being constrained to slide with respect to said frame in said tension
axis (see figs. 4-5);
said sliding element being further constrained such that said lower surface of said
second cross member has a maximum distance to said upper surface of said first cross member in a direction perpendicular to said width of said flexible tension element (see below);
said sliding element being further constrained such that said lower surface of said
second cross member overlaps said upper surface of said first cross member in an overlap distance parallel to said tension axis (see below).
Regarding Claim 9, McMurray teaches:
A frame further comprising a slot (see below) in which said sliding element is
constrained to slide.
PNG
media_image8.png
347
627
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
331
408
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wier, U.S. Patent 5,771,544.
Regarding Claim 1, insofar as the claim is understood, Wier teaches:
A frame (10) comprising a first cross member (see below), said first cross member being
oriented perpendicular to said tension axis (see Figs. 2-3);
said first cross member having an upper surface, a lower surface, and a rear surface (see
below);
a sliding element (12) comprising a second cross member (20), said second cross
member being oriented perpendicular to said tension axis;
said second cross member having an upper surface and a lower surface (see below);
said sliding element being constrained to slide with respect to said frame in said tension
axis (see Figs. 2-3);
said sliding element being further constrained such that said lower surface of said
second cross member has a maximum distance to said upper surface of said first cross member in a direction perpendicular to said width of said flexible tension element (see below);
said sliding element being further constrained such that said lower surface of said
second cross member overlaps said upper surface of said first cross member in an overlap distance parallel to said tension axis (see below).
PNG
media_image10.png
390
580
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Wier teaches:
Said upper surface of said first cross member having at least one relief (see 16);
said lower surface of said second cross member having at least one protrusion (see 22); said at least one protrusion being positioned opposite said at least one relief when said first cross member at least partially overlaps said second cross member.
Regarding Claim 5, Wier teaches:
Said at least one relief and at least one protrusion being configured to provide a locking
mechanism to hold said flexible tension element when said first cross member at least partially overlaps said second cross member (see Abstract).
Claim(s) 1, 10 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Willey, U.S. Patent 4,871,190.
Regarding Claim 1, insofar as the claim is understood, Willey teaches:
A frame (14) comprising a first cross member (34), said first cross member being
oriented perpendicular to said tension axis (see Fig. 2);
said first cross member having an upper surface, a lower surface, and a rear surface (see
below);
a sliding element (40) comprising a second cross member (40), said second cross
member being oriented perpendicular to said tension axis;
said second cross member having an upper surface and a lower surface (see below);
said sliding element being constrained to slide with respect to said frame in said tension
axis (see Figs. 2-3);
said sliding element being further constrained such that said lower surface of said
second cross member has a maximum distance to said upper surface of said first cross member in a direction perpendicular to said width of said flexible tension element (see below);
said sliding element being further constrained such that said lower surface of said
second cross member overlaps said upper surface of said first cross member in an overlap distance parallel to said tension axis (see below).
PNG
media_image11.png
390
558
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 10, Willey teaches:
A pair of guiding faces and said sliding element further comprising a pair of capturing
faces in which said sliding element is constrained to slide (see below).
PNG
media_image12.png
350
374
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 15, Willey teaches:
The sliding element being constrained to slide at an angle to a plane defined by said
tension axis and orthogonal to said first cross member (see figs. 2-3 and note relative angle of element 42).
Claim(s) 1, 10-11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Merrick ‘483.
Regarding Claim 1, insofar as the claim is understood, under an alternative interpretation, Merrick ‘483 teaches:
A frame (240) comprising a first cross member (244), said first cross member being
oriented perpendicular to said tension axis (Fig. 2B);
said first cross member having an upper surface, a lower surface, and a rear surface (see
below);
a sliding element (228/230) comprising a second cross member (see below), said
second cross member being oriented perpendicular to said tension axis (Fig. 2B);
said second cross member having an upper surface and a lower surface (see below);
said sliding element being constrained to slide with respect to said frame in said tension
axis (figs. 4A-B);
said sliding element being further constrained such that said lower surface of said
second cross member has a maximum distance to said upper surface of said first
cross member in a direction perpendicular to said width of said flexible tension element (see below);
said sliding element being further constrained such that said lower surface of said
second cross member overlaps said upper surface of said first cross member in an overlap distance parallel to said tension axis (see below).
PNG
media_image13.png
464
305
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
342
438
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 10, Merrick teaches:
The frame (240) further comprising a pair of guiding faces (252a, b) and said sliding
element further comprising a pair of capturing faces (228/230) in which said sliding element is constrained to slide.
Regarding Claim 11, Merrick teaches:
The sliding element comprising two separate elements (228/230) that are attached to
each other to form said capturing faces.
Regarding Claim 14, Merrick teaches:
Two separate elements being attached by a permanent attachment (see Col 3, Ln 49 –
Col 4, Ln 11 which teaches molding which is interpreted to be a permanent attachment).
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) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merrick ‘483 as applied to claims 1, 10-11 and 14 above, and further in view of Emonin, U.S. Patent 11,583,039.
Merrick ‘483 is silent with regard to the two separate elements being attached by a snap fit.
Emonin clearly teaches a buckle device with a two-part element where the elements are attached by a snap fit (see fig. 4, elements 3, 10, Col 6, Lns 14-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the elements of Merrick with a snap fit because that would permit removal and replacement of components due to damage or wear-and-tear.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merrick ‘483 as applied to claims 1, 10-11 and 14 above, and further in view of Meek, U.S. Patent 9,360,276.
Merrick ‘483 is silent with regard to the two separate elements being attached by fasteners.
Meek clearly teaches a buckle (100) with two separate components connected by fasteners (20, 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Merrick with the two elements attached by fasteners as taught by Meek because fasteners would permit easy assembly and disassembly in case of repair or replacement of either or both elements.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merrick ‘483 as applied to claims 1, 10-11 and 14 above, and further in view of Langtry, U.S. Patent 8,272,108.
Merrick ‘483 is silent with regard to the flexible tension element being a cord.
Langtry clearly teaches a slide buckle for use on a tension element such as a cord (see 60, Figs. 5A-B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Merrick ‘483 usable with a cord because resizing Merrick ‘483 for use with a cord would increase the market size available for the product, i.e., the webbing market and the cord market.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Willey, U.S. Patent 4,871,190.
Willey teaches the sliding element being confined to sliding at an angle, but does not teach the sliding element constrained to slide at least part in a curved direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Willey with a curved sliding direction of partly curved direction because Willey teaches a curved section (36) near the terminus of the slider constrainer (42) and shallowing the path to match the curve would reduce the impact force on the webbing and reduce the likelihood of puncture of the webbing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5218. The examiner can normally be reached IFP, Typically M-Th, 8:00-6:00, regular Fr availability.
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, Jason San can be reached at 571-272-6531. 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.
/M.J.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677