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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, each strap tapering unfolded from the top end of the body portion to reduce bulk (for clarity, the width unfolded at the end portion is not clearly shown and so the strap does not clearly taper unfolded from the top end of the body portion, and additionally the strap appears to be the same width along much of its length rather than tapered) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: it does not disclose each strap tapering unfolded from the top end of the body portion to reduce bulk (the only disclosure of tapering is the shoulder straps “taper toward the webbing” which is broader than the language used in the claims).
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 1-13 is 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.
With Respect to Claims 1 and 11
The specification does not disclose and the drawings do not show “each strap tapering unfolded from the top end of the body portion to reduce bulk”. As such, this subject matter 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.
With Respect to Claims 1-20 and 12-13
These claims are rejected as they depend from a rejected claim and so incorporate its failure to comply with the written description requirement.
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 1-13 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.
With Respect to Claims 1 and 11
The scope of the phrase “each strap tapering unfolded from the top end of the body portion to reduce bulk” is unclear, noting that this phrase is not used in the specification, and it is unclear whether this requires that the strap taper along the entirety of its length or if it encompasses portions being the same width and/or widening as long as there are portions that taper as claimed, or if it has some other scope.
The remainder of this office action is based on the invention as best understood by Examiner.
With Respect to Claims 2-10 and 12-13
These claims are rejected as they depend from a rejected claim and so incorporate its indefinite scope.
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 1-4 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #11,490,741 to Pa (Pa) in view of U.S. Patent #10,271,663 to Salazar (Salazar), U.S. Patent #11,219,317 to Telford (Telford), and U.S. Patent Publication #2007/0152007 to Kauss (Kauss).
With Respect to Claim 1
Pa discloses a wearable carrier, comprising; a body portion (10) having an inside and an outside, a top end, a bottom end, a first side edge, and second side edge, the side edges spaced apart by and extending between the top and bottom ends; a first and second side fastener (lower portion of 58 on each side, see, e.g. FIG. 1C) extending from the first and second side edges of the body portion, respectively (see, e.g. FIG. 1C); an adjustable belt (80) disposed at the bottom edge and securable about a wearer's upper body, and the lower portion of the body portion being scrunchable to adjust the width of the lower portion (via 33, see, e.g. FIG. 1C and description); a first and second adjustable shoulder strap (52-53) extending from opposing sides of the top end of the body portion, each strap having an elongated inner and outer edge on opposing sides of a strap centerline, each strap comprising a fastener (upper portion of 58 on each side) operative to removably secure such strap to either one of the first and second side fasteners (FIG. 1d and description); and an adjustable chest strap (70) defined by a first end and second end, each end comprising means for adjustably attaching to the shoulder strap; but does not disclose the bottom end defining a channel, the adjustable belt disposed within the channel, the channel being scrunchable around the belt to enable adjustment of the width of the channel, a portion of each inner and outer edge proximate to the body portion of the carrier folded inward toward the strap centerline and secured in place at the top end of the body portion, a plurality of anchors disposed along the elongated inner edge of each shoulder strap; or each end of the adjustable chest strap comprising means for optionally and alternatively engaging one each of the plurality of anchors, or each strap tapering unfolded from the top end of the body portion to reduce bulk.
Salazar discloses a similar child carrier with a main body having a bottom edge including a channel (sleeve 224, FIGS. 15-18), the adjustable belt (266) disposed within the channel, the channel being scrunchable around the belt to enable adjustment of the width of the channel (capable of this use, which is also the intended use, see e.g. FIGS. 15-16 and description), and that this allows for adjustment of the width of the seat to accommodate children of different sizes and/or provide different support positions/configurations (see, e.g. abstract).
Telford discloses forming a similar child carrier with shoulder straps wherein a portion of each inner and outer edge proximate to the body portion of the carrier are folded inward toward the strap centerline and secured in place at the top end of the body portion (FIG. 10 and description), in order to allow the shoulder strap to be provided with a slit or other opening that can open/widen to allow the shoulder straps to widen (Col. 15 lines 9-14), each strap tapering unfolded from the top end of the body portion to reduce bulk (noting the inwardly tapering ends of the strap towards the webbing portions that attach the buckle members 164, see, e.g. FIG. 1, it is Examiner’s position that this will reduce bulk relative to a strap which does not taper towards the webbing attachment as the tapering results in less material use/bulk).
Kauss discloses forming a similar user worn carrying structure with a pair of shoulder straps including a plurality of anchors (46) disposed along each shoulder strap; each end of an adjustable chest strap (62, FIG. 3) comprising means for optionally and alternatively engaging one each of the plurality of anchors ([0046]). It is noted that the fasteners (46) are also disclosed as usable to attach other items to the shoulder straps.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Salazar, to add a lower channel and cinchable sleeve as taught by Salazar to the Pa carrier, in order to allow for adjustment of the width of the seat to accommodate children of different sizes and/or provide different support positions/configurations, and/or as doing so constitutes at most merely making adjustable which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04).
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Telford, to form the portion of each inner and outer edge proximate to the body portion of the carrier are folded inward toward the strap centerline and secured in place at the top end of the body portion in order to allow the shoulder straps to widen as taught by Telford, and to form each strap tapering unfolded from the top end of the body portion in order to provide a wider and more comfortable strap portion resting on the shoulder and a slimmer/lighter/less bulky strap portion for attachment to the belt, as a mere substitution of one art known shoulder strap structure for another and/or as doing so constitutes at most a mere change in shape which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 21144.04) or a mere change in size/proportion which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Kauss, to add a plurality of anchors disposed along the elongated inner edge of each shoulder strap (for clarity, the particular location is considered a matter of design choice, constitutes at most a mere rearrangement of parts which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art, and/or is “obvious to try” as a mere selection from a limited number of art known alternatives: i.e. they must be located along the inner edge, the outer edge, or in the middle); and forming each end of the chest strap with means for optionally and alternatively engaging one each of the plurality of anchors, in order to better secure the chest strap at a desired adjusted position. For clarity, the combination encompasses either adding the fasteners as an additional securement mechanism for the chest strap with the additional benefit of also being usable to secure additional items; or replacing the loops at the end of the chest strap with an engagement structure for the fasteners per Kauss, as a mere substitution of one art known attachment structure/fastener for another, with the additional benefit of also being usable to secure additional items.
With Respect to Claim 2
The wearable carrier of claim 1, wherein the belt disposed within the channel is further anchored to a central portion of the channel (via 278, FIG. 15 and description) to maintain the belt in a fixed position relative to the body portion of the carrier, and the remainder of the channel continues to be scrunchable around the belt to optionally enable adjustment of the width of the channel (FIGS. 15-16 and description).
With Respect to Claim 3
The wearable carrier of claim 1, wherein the belt comprises an elongated, central, padded portion (85/86 and padding between them) having a first end and a second end and a length of webbing (81 to each side) extending from each of the first and second ends and comprising fasteners (83) selectively engageable with one another, wherein the elongated, central, padded portion is anchored to the body portion of the carrier within the channel (via 278 per Salazar, FIG. 15 and description).
Alternately, as to the webbing extending from each of two sides, although Examiner maintains that the Pa structure meets this claim limitation, Kauss discloses forming a similar belt having a central portion and webbing portions that extend outwardly beyond each end of the central portion (see, e.g. FIG. 1), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, given the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art to have the webbing portions each extend beyond the end of the central portion in order to have them extend and avoid interference from the padded central portion during use, as a mere selection of an art appropriate length for the webbing, or at most a mere change in size/proportion which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)), either in view of the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or in view of the disclosure of Kauss of this type of belt structure.
With Respect to Claim 4
The wearable carrier of claim 1, wherein, wherein the shoulder straps comprise a portion proximate the body portion and a distal end of the portion is tapered relative to the remainder of the the portion (see, e.g. FIG. 1D, FIG. 2F); the use of fabric for other parts of the carrier (e.g. belt, hood, main body), and shows the webbing portion attached to a distal end of the portion proximate the body portion (noting shown in contact with it along most of its length including near the terminus which area is part of the distal end); but does not explicitly detail a material for the shoulder straps or attachment methods of the thinner part to the remainder of the shoulder strap and so does not disclose the shoulder straps comprise a fabric portion proximate to the body portion of the carrier and a webbing portion distal to the body portion and permanently secured to a distal end of the fabric portion.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Pa, to form the shoulder straps out of fabric, as a mere selection of an art appropriate material to use, to save on costs (i.e. using fewer different materials reduces storage and materials costs), for the art known benefits of a given fabric material or fabric materials in general, and/or as 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. It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to permanently secure the webbing portion to a distal end of the fabric portion (for clarity, permanent securement at other points is also obvious, but the rejection encompasses the attachment at other points being removable or permanent as the claim language does not specifically require any particular attachment at those locations) in order to provide firm securement in that location, as a mere selection of an art appropriate attachment mechanism to use, as doing so is “obvious to try” as a mere selection from a limited number of art known alternatives (i.e. it must be either permanent or removable and either is obvious for the art known benefits of each) and/or as doing so constitutes at most merely making integral which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04).
Alternately, Telford discloses the use of sewing to attach shoulder straps (to the carrier) and to attach a similar webbing to a belt/strap via sewing (noting attachment of 114 to padded portion of waist belt), wherein the portion adjacent the body tapers towards the distal end (see, e.g. FIG. 2); and/or Salazar discloses the use of similar shoulder straps comprising a primary segment near the body and a narrower secondary segment stitched/sewn to the end. Any of these provide additional evidence of the obviousness of and/or motivation to form the shoulder straps of Pa/the combination in the claimed fashion.
With Respect to Claim 7
The wearable carrier of claim 1, wherein the first and second side fasteners and shoulder strap fasteners comprise matable side release buckles (Pa shows common matable side release buckles).
With Respect to Claim 8
The wearable carrier of claim 7, wherein the belt and shoulder straps comprise slide buckles arranged to permit adjustment to the length of such belt and straps (both side release buckles are shown as including slide buckles, see e.g. excess strap material on them in Fig. 1C or to the degree some other construction might be possible clearly renders such obvious).
With Respect to Claim 9
The wearable carrier of claim 7, and the use of padding to enhance comfort, but does not disclose comprising padding disposed adjacent to the first and second side edges just above the belt and operative to cushion an occupant's legs while in use.
However, Telford discloses the use of padding (padding proximate 126, FIG. 1) disposed adjacent to the first and second side edges just above the belt and operative to cushion an occupant's legs while in use (disclosed as padding the area supporting the child’s thighs); Salazar discloses adding a padded layer to prescribed areas of the main body panel (112).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Pa, Telford, or Salazar, to add padding to the first and second side edges just above the belt operative to cushion an occupant’s legs while in use, in order to enhance the comfort of the child and/or provide additional support in that location (per Pa for the general art known benefits of padding and a mere selection of an art appropriate location or at most a mere rearrangement of parts which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04); per Telford for the explicit padding and location as taught by Telford for the benefits disclosed therefor; per Salazar a mere selection of an art appropriate location for the padding or at most a mere rearrangement of parts which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04)).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #11,490,741 to Pa (Pa) in view of U.S. Patent #10,271,663 to Salazar (Salazar), U.S. Patent #11,219,317 to Telford (Telford), and U.S. Patent Publication #2007/0152007 to Kauss (Kauss) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent #12,246,235 to Coonts (Coonts).
With Respect to Claim 5
The wearable carrier of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the means for optionally and alternatively engaging one each of the plurality of anchors is a hook.
However, Coonts discloses the use of a hook (135) as a means for attaching a strap end to a loop to removably attach the strap, and also that this is a substitute for numerous other types of fasteners.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Kauss to use a plurality of fasteners to provide discrete attachment locations/anchors for the ends of a sternum strap, and Coonts’s disclosure of hooks on the strap to attach to a loop as a discrete attachment location for a strap, to form the fasteners as loops and the means for optionally and alternatively engaging one each of the plurality of anchors as a hook, as a mere substitution of one art known attachment mechanism for another.
With Respect to Claim 6
The wearable carrier of claim 5, wherein the hook is a G-hook (per Coonts).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #11,490,741 to Pa (Pa) in view of U.S. Patent #10,271,663 to Salazar (Salazar), U.S. Patent #11,219,317 to Telford (Telford), and U.S. Patent Publication #2007/0152007 to Kauss (Kauss) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication #2014/0097215 to Caperon (Caperon).
With Respect to Claim 10
The wearable carrier of claim 7, and a layer of padding interposed between an inner and outer layer of fabric (noting padding on belt between 85 and 86 and on shoulder straps between the two layers of material) operative to reinforce the wearable carrier and provide cushioning to the wearer and occupant (capable of this use); but does not specify a type of padding and so does not disclose that it is batting.
However, Caperon discloses that batting is an art known type of padding for a child carrier as well as the use of padding/batting on the main body of the carrier.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Caperon, to use batting as the padding of the waist belt and/or shoulder straps, and/or to add padding/batting to the main body, in order to provide cushioning to increase the comfort of the wearer and occupant.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #11,490,741 to Pa (Pa) in view of U.S. Patent #10,271,663 to Salazar (Salazar), U.S. Patent #11,219,317 to Telford (Telford), and U.S. Patent Publication #2007/0152007 to Kauss (Kauss), and further in view of U.S. Patent #10,194,731 to Guthrie (Guthrie) and/or U.S. Patent #10,264,895 to Lindeman (Lindeman).
With Respect to Claim 11
Pa in view of Salazar, Telford, and Kauss (see the rejection of claim 1 above for details of the combination) discloses a device for carrying a baby or child, comprising; a body portion (10 as modified) having an inside and an outside, a top end, a bottom end defining a channel (per Salazar), a first side edge, and second side edge, the side edges spaced apart by and extending between the top and bottom ends; a portion of a side release buckle (lower portion of 58 on each side, see, e.g. FIG. 1C) extending from one each of the first and second side edges of the body portion, respectively; an adjustable belt (80) comprising an elongated, padded portion (85/86 and padding therebetween) and a first and second webbing portion (81 on each side of 85) extending from opposing ends of the elongated, padded portion and having fasteners (83) operative to secure the belt about a wearer's upper body, the belt disposed within and anchored to the channel by stitching (Salazar 278, FIG. 15 and description), and the channel being scrunchable around the belt to enable adjustment of the width of the channel (Salazar FIGS. 15-16 and description); a first and second adjustable shoulder strap (52-53 per Pa as modified) extending from opposing sides of the top end of the body portion, each strap having an elongated inner and outer edge on opposing sides of a strap centerline, a portion of each inner and outer edge proximate to the body portion of the carrier folded inward toward the strap centerline and secured in place at the top end of the body portion (per Telford), each strap comprising a length of webbing extending opposite the top end of the body portion, each strap tapering unfolded from the top end of the body portion to reduce bulk (per Telford), a portion of a slide release buckle (upper portion of 58 on each side) adjustable along the length of the webbing and operative to matably and removably secure such strap to either one of the first and second side edge side release buckles; a plurality of anchors (46 per Kauss) disposed along the elongated inner edge of each shoulder strap; and an adjustable chest strap (71 as modified by Kauss) comprising a slide buckle (77, 78) and defined by a first end and second end, each end comprising means for optionally and alternatively engaging one each of the plurality of anchors (per Kauss), but does not disclose that the means for optionally and alternatively engaging one each of the plurality of anchors is visually obscured by any fabric defining the shoulder strap.
However, Guthrie discloses forming a sternum strap structure connectable to shoulder straps via a connection point inside of a pocket (112) of the shoulder strap in order to accommodate the sternum strap when not in use, the pocket formed of fabric of the shoulder strap and visually obscuring the connection points of the sternum strap.
Lindeman discloses the use of a fabric fastener cover (604) over fasteners on a child carrier in order to cover at least a portion of the fastener to prevent the child from contacting the fastener.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Guthrie or Lindeman, to form the shoulder strap with a fabric material visually obscuring the fasteners as taught by either reference (for Guthrie providing a pocket, for Lindeman adding a fabric cover formed as part of the shoulder strap) for the benefits disclosed by that reference for its structure.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #11,490,741 to Pa (Pa) in view of U.S. Patent #10,271,663 to Salazar (Salazar), U.S. Patent #11,219,317 to Telford (Telford), U.S. Patent Publication #2007/0152007 to Kauss (Kauss), and further in view of U.S. Patent #10,194,731 to Guthrie (Guthrie) and/or U.S. Patent #10,264,895 to Lindeman (Lindeman) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent #12,246,235 to Coonts (Coonts).
With Respect to Claim 12
The device claim 11, but does not disclose wherein the means for optionally and alternatively engaging one each of the plurality of anchors is a hook.
However, Coonts discloses the use of a hook (135) as a means for attaching a strap end to a loop to removably attach the strap, and also that this is a substitute for numerous other types of fasteners.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Kauss to use a plurality of fasteners to provide discrete attachment locations/anchors for the ends of a sternum strap, and Coonts’s disclosure of hooks on the strap to attach to a loop as a discrete attachment location for a strap, to form the fasteners as loops and the means for optionally and alternatively engaging one each of the plurality of anchors as a hook, as a mere substitution of one art known attachment mechanism for another.
With Respect to Claim 13
The device of claim 11, wherein the hook is a G-hook (per Coonts).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/6/26 have been fully considered but they are either not persuasive or are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner has combined an excessive number of references, reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Here, the rejection takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, and so the reconstruction is proper.
In response to Applicant’s arguments regarding reasoning for particular locations being a matter of obvious design choice, mere rearrangement of parts, or “obvious to try”, all of these are examples of acceptable reasoning, for example “obvious to try” is an example rationale to support a conclusion of obviousness per KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) . See MPEP 2144.04 for case law indicating that the mere shifting of the location of a part that does not modify the operation of the device/apparatus is a part of does not patentably distinguish over the prior art; i.e. there is no inventive step in the mere relocation of a structure to a different location which does not modify the performance of the device/structure, which is the case in the combinations presented in the rejection above (e.g. Kauss discloses fasteners 46, and shows them located centrally on shoulder straps, but does not indicate that this particular location is of any particular significance, and the fasteners will operate in the same fashion if located along the inner edge of the shoulder strap and so it would be obvious/there is no inventive step in locating them at this location). Similar reasoning applies to the matter of “design choice”, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) that the particular placement of a structure may be a matter of design choice and so locating it in a different area is an obvious matter of design choice.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that the Office Action relies on mere conclusory statements and does not provide the articulated reasoning required to support the proposed combination of references, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner maintains the position that the Office Action provides the articulated reasoning required to support the proposed combination of references, as it clearly points out the benefits of/motivation for each modification, or alternately indicates that the modification is an obvious matter of design choice or the like as supported by case law (i.e. the differences between the prior art and the invention are not patentable distinctions, for example, as noted above, there is no inventive step in the mere relocation of a structure from one spot to another where the relocation does not modify the performance of the device/structure).
In response to Applicant’s arguments that the Guthrie or Lindeman structures describe different structural solutions serving different purposes, both Gurthrie and Lindeman disclose fasteners covered by portions of the shoulder strap, which meets the limitations of claim 11, and each provides sufficient motivation to add this structure for the benefits disclosed by that reference (e.g. as to Guthrie its’ disclosure of allowing storage of the fastener when not in use is sufficient benefit to add its pocket structure, which will serve to visually obscure the fastener as recited in claim 11).
In response to Applicant’s arguments regarding the amended claim language, see the modified rejection above, noting the new objections and rejections related to this subject matter, and well as regarding Telford disclosing/rendering obvious the amended claimed subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 ADAM J WAGGENSPACK whose telephone number is (571)270-7418. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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 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.
/ADAM J WAGGENSPACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights