Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 § 103
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Claims 1, 4, 5, 7-16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Heusen (US 2014/0027480 A1) in view of Shimonishi et al. (US 10,047,906 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Van Heusen discloses an aircrew safety equipment mounting arrangement for attachment to an item worn on the body of an aircrew member (none of the equipment, item, or body currently being claimed in combination due to the functional language “for attachment”), the mounting arrangement including a mounting plate (182), a backing plate (186), a pivotal attachment coupling the mounting plate to the backing plate (see Figure 4), and a lock configured to lock the mounting plate and the backing plate in a closed position (see Figure 4), the mounting arrangement being moveable by the pivotal attachment between the closed position (see hidden lines in Figure 4), in which the mounting arrangement is arranged to clamp the item (item still not being claimed in combination, though Van Heusen discloses such an item in the form of a vest in Figure 1) worn on the body of an aircrew member between the mounting plate and the backing plate, and an open position (see Figure 4) in which the item worn on the body of an aircrew member is released.
Van Heusen fails to disclose wherein the mounting plate includes a mounting plate tubular locking portion and the backing plate includes a backing plate tubular locking portion, and wherein the lock comprises a locking pin that is configured to pass through the mounting plate tubular locking portion and the backing plate tubular locking portion to prevent rotation between the mounting plate and the backing plate around the pivot pin. Van Heusen does disclose a locking mechanism for the end of the mounting arrangement opposite the hinged end (see Figure 4) but it does not include the presently claimed structure.
Shimonishi teaches that it was already known for an upper locking portion like that of Van Heusen to include a mounting plate tubular locking portion (see proximate 332 in 310 in Figure 3) and a backing plate (320) tubular locking portion (see proximate 332 in 30 in Figure 3), and wherein the lock comprises a spring-loaded (338) locking pin (332) that is configured to pass through the mounting plate tubular locking portion and the backing plate tubular locking (see Figure 1) portion to prevent rotation between the mounting plate and the backing plate around the pivot pin.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have replaced the upper locking portion of Van Heusen with any other known locking mechanism, including one with a pin as claimed, where such locking mechanism design was already known to be suitable for such use, as shown by Shimonishi. The proposed modification is nothing more than a substitution of one known locking mechanism for another in order to achieve predictable results. To be clear, the proposed modified Van Heusen apparatus would still include the swinging clamping arm (182) of Van Heusen – only the locking mechanism at the terminal end of the arm is being changed.
Regarding claim 4, Van Heusen as modified above would include the mounting arrangement of claim 1, wherein the lock further comprises a compression spring, as taught by Shimonishi (338), fitted between the locking pin and tubular locking portion of one of the mounting plate and the backing plate so that the compression spring urges the locking pin into the tubular locking portion of the other of the mounting plate and the backing plate for locking the mounting plate and the backing plate in the closed position.
Regarding claim 5, Van Heusen as modified above would include the mounting arrangement of claim 4, wherein the locking pin is configured to be manually moveable, as taught by Shimonishi (via 336), relative to the mounting plate and the backing plate so that the locking pin withdraws from the tubular locking portion of the other of the mounting plate and the backing plate to enable the mounting arrangement to move into the open position.
Regarding claim 7, Van Heusen as modified above would include the mounting arrangement of claim 1, wherein Van Heusen discloses the mounting plate (186) includes at least one formation (100) configured to mechanically engage aircrew safety equipment (equipment still not being claimed in combination though Van Heusen discloses such equipment in the form of tourniquet 102) to couple the aircrew safety equipment to the item worn on the body of an aircrew member.
Regarding claim 8, Van Heusen as modified above would include the mounting arrangement of claim 7, wherein Van Heusen discloses the least one formation (100) comprises two oppositely inclined channels (one channel being left half of 150 located under 130, other channel being right half of 150 located under 140, see Figure 3) configured to engage a tapered connecting plate of the aircrew safety equipment (neither the connecting plate nor the safety equipment currently being claimed in combination due to the functional language “configured to engage”).
Regarding claim 9, Van Heusen as modified above would include the mounting arrangement of claim 1, wherein the aircrew safety equipment comprises a crew regulator unit. The safety equipment is still not being claimed in combination and there is no structure in Van Heusen that would physically prevent a user from sliding a tapered connecting plate of a crew regulator unit within the channels of Van Heusen as only functionally claimed.
Regarding claim 10, Van Heusen as modified above would include the mounting arrangement of claim 1, wherein the item worn on the body of the aircrew member includes a strip of material to which the mounting arrangement is arranged to clamp when closed in use. The item is still not being claimed in combination though Van Heusen does disclose the mounting arrangement being attached to such a strip as only functionally claimed (see “MOLLE-compatible” in [0016]).
Regarding claim 11, Van Heusen as modified above would include the mounting arrangement of claim 1, wherein the item worn on the body of the aircrew member includes a part of a harness, lifejacket or a load-carrying garment. The item is still not being claimed in combination though Van Heusen does disclose the mounting arrangement being attached to such a harness/garment as only functionally claimed (see “MOLLE-compatible combat vest” in [0016]).
Regarding claim 12, Van Heusen as modified above would include the mounting arrangement of claim 11, wherein the load-carrying garment is a MOLLE load-carrying garment comprising at least one row of webbing that is attached to a backing at attachment sections at spaced apart intervals. The item is still not being claimed in combination though Van Heusen does disclose the mounting arrangement being attached to such a harness/garment as only functionally claimed (see “MOLLE-compatible combat vest” in [0016]).
Regarding claim 13, the normal operation and use of the Van Heusen mounting arrangement would include a method of facilitating attachment of aircrew safety equipment (tourniquet 102) to an item worn on the body of a wearer (see “user” in [0020] and [0035]), the method including: providing a mounting arrangement including a mounting plate (182), a backing plate (186), a pivotal attachment coupling the mounting plate to the backing plate (see Figure 4), and a lock configured to lock the mounting plate and the backing plate in a closed position (see Figure 4); when the mounting arrangement is in an open position, passing the backing plate behind the item worn on the body of a wearer (as would be the case when attaching to MOLLE gear as set forth in [0034]); rotating the mounting plate about the pivotal attachment to the closed position (see hidden lines in Figure 4), in which the mounting arrangement clamps the item worn on the body of the wearer between the mounting plate and the backing plate (as would be the case when attached to MOLLE gear as set forth in [0034]); and locking the mounting plate to the backing plate in a closed position using the lock.
Van Heusen fails to disclose wherein the mounting plate includes a mounting plate tubular locking portion and the backing plate includes a backing plate tubular locking portion, and wherein the lock comprises a locking pin that is configured to pass through the mounting plate tubular locking portion and the backing plate tubular locking portion to prevent rotation between the mounting plate and the backing plate around the pivot pin. Van Heusen does disclose a locking mechanism for the end of the mounting arrangement opposite the hinged end (see Figure 4) but it does not include the presently claimed structure.
Shimonishi teaches that it was already known for an upper locking portion like that of Van Heusen to include a mounting plate tubular locking portion (see proximate 332 in 310 in Figure 3) and a backing plate (320) tubular locking portion (see proximate 332 in 30 in Figure 3), and wherein the lock comprises a spring-loaded (338) locking pin (332) that is configured to pass through the mounting plate tubular locking portion and the backing plate tubular locking (see Figure 1) portion to prevent rotation between the mounting plate and the backing plate around the pivot pin.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have replaced the upper locking portion of Van Heusen with any other known locking mechanism, including one with a pin as claimed, where such locking mechanism design was already known to be suitable for such use, as shown by Shimonishi. The proposed modification is nothing more than a substitution of one known locking mechanism for another in order to achieve predictable results.
Regarding claim 14, the normal operation and use of the modified Van Heusen mounting arrangement would include the method of claim 13, Van Heusen teaching the method further including mechanically attaching the aircrew safety equipment (102) to the mounting arrangement (see Figures and 0032]) to couple the aircrew safety equipment to the item worn on the body of the wearer to thereby locate the aircrew safety equipment on the body of the wearer (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 15, the normal operation and use of the modified Van Heusen mounting arrangement would include the method of claim 13, wherein the mounting arrangement is as claimed in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 16, Van Heusen discloses an aircrew safety equipment mounting arrangement for attachment to an item worn on the body of an aircrew member (none of the equipment, item, or body currently being claimed in combination due to the functional language “for attachment”), the mounting arrangement including a mounting plate (182), a backing plate (186), pivotal attachment means (see Figure 4) for coupling the mounting plate to the backing plate, and locking means (see Figure 4) for locking the mounting plate and the backing plate in a closed position (see hidden lines in Figure 4), the mounting arrangement being moveable by the pivotal attachment means between the closed position (see hidden lines in Figure 4), in which the mounting arrangement is arranged to clamp the item worn on the body of an aircrew member between the mounting plate and the backing plate, and an open position (see Figure 4) in which the item worn on the body of an aircrew member is released.
Van Heusen fails to disclose wherein the mounting plate includes a mounting plate tubular locking portion and the backing plate includes a backing plate tubular locking portion, and wherein the lock comprises a locking pin that is configured to pass through the mounting plate tubular locking portion and the backing plate tubular locking portion to prevent rotation between the mounting plate and the backing plate around the pivot pin. Van Heusen does disclose a locking mechanism for the end of the mounting arrangement opposite the hinged end (see Figure 4) but it does not include the presently claimed structure.
Shimonishi teaches that it was already known for an upper locking portion like that of Van Heusen to include a mounting plate tubular locking portion (see proximate 332 in 310 in Figure 3) and a backing plate (320) tubular locking portion (see proximate 332 in 30 in Figure 3), and wherein the lock comprises a spring-loaded (338) locking pin (332) that is configured to pass through the mounting plate tubular locking portion and the backing plate tubular locking (see Figure 1) portion to prevent rotation between the mounting plate and the backing plate around the pivot pin.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have replaced the upper locking portion of Van Heusen with any other known locking mechanism, including one with a pin as claimed, where such locking mechanism design was already known to be suitable for such use, as shown by Shimonishi. The proposed modification is nothing more than a substitution of one known locking mechanism for another in order to achieve predictable results.
Regarding claim 19, Van Heusen as modified above would include the mounting arrangement of claim 16, wherein the lock further comprises a compression spring, as taught by Shimonishi (338), fitted between the locking pin and tubular locking portion of one of the mounting plate and the backing plate so that the compression spring urges the locking pin into the tubular locking portion of the other of the mounting plate and the backing plate for locking the mounting plate and the backing plate in the closed position.
Regarding claim 20, Van Heusen as modified above would include the mounting arrangement of claim 19, wherein the locking pin is configured to be manually moveable, as taught by Shimonishi (via 336), relative to the mounting plate and the backing plate so that the locking pin withdraws from the tubular locking portion of the other of the mounting plate and the backing plate to enable the mounting arrangement to move into the open position.
5. Claims 2, 6, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Heusen (US 2014/0027480 A1) in view of Shimonishi et al. (US 10,047,906 B2) as applied above, further in view of Terzuola et al. (US 6,145,169 A).
Regarding claims 2 and 17, Van Heusen as modified above would include the mounting arrangement of claims 1 and 16, wherein Van Heusen discloses the mounting plate includes a mounting plate tubular pivot portion and the backing plate includes a backing plate tubular pivot portion (see Figure 4). Van Heusen does not show or describe the internal workings of the hinge structure and thus fails to disclose wherein the pivotal attachment comprises a pivot pin that passes through the mounting plate tubular pivot portion and the backing plate tubular pivot portion to enable relative rotation between the mounting plate and the backing plate around the pivot pin. Terzuola teaches that it was already known for a hinge like that of Van Heusen to include a hinge pin (16) within the tubular portions thereof. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the hinge of the modified Van Heusen mounting arrangement with a hinge pin, where such hinge design was already known to be suitable for such use, as shown by Terzuola. The proposed modification is nothing more than a substitution of one known hinge design for another in order to achieve predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, Van Heusen as modified above so far includes the mounting arrangement of claim 2, and would also include wherein the mounting plate tubular pivot portion and the backing plate tubular pivot portion are at an opposite end of the mounting arrangement to the mounting plate tubular locking portion and the backing plate tubular locking portion, as taught by Van Heusen.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments filed 9/3/26 with respect to the 35 USC 112 and 102 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The appropriate rejections have been withdrawn.
7. Applicant's arguments filed 9/3/26 with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
8. Applicant first argues that the proposed combination of Van Heusen and Shimonishi would render Shimonishi unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Examiner notes that the rejections above make changes to Van Heusen. Shimonishi is never modified.
9. Applicant next argues that the pin locking mechanism of Shimonishi requires a zero-clearance fit which would not be possible within the pivoting clamp design of Van Heusen when the Van Heusen clamp receives different thicknesses of fabric therein. Examiner notes that Van Heusen’s pivoting clamp design already has a locking mechanism that needs to achieve a certain position to become locked. See Figure 4 of Van Heusen where the swinging member has a pair of ears that a received beneath the surface of a clip even when clamped into fabric. There is also tolerance here. The lock must reach that point to function. Too much fabric and it may fail. This would be user error, not design error. This does not change when replacing the ear and clip locking mechanism of Van Heusen with a pin locking mechanism like that of Shimonishi.
Conclusion
10. 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.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN MATTHEW LARSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8649. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-3pm. 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.
/JUSTIN M LARSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734 10/13/26
