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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the limitation of “a girth plate formed of a material which will not substantially flex or deform under pressures exerted by the girth straps when tightened, in use, on a horse.” The sections of the specification provided are not identifiable on the copy provided to the Office as there are no paragraph numbers provided only line and page numbers, with the intent to advance prosecution the Examiner assumes the following statements reside therein: “Preferably, the girth plate does not deflect, flex or deform when a force of about 20Nm is applied to the girth straps perpendicular to a surface of the girth plate.” and/or “In preferred embodiments, the resilient or reinforced plate 52 is a plate which does not deflect or deform when a force of 20Nm is applied to all the girth straps simultaneously perpendicular to the surface of the resilient or reinforced plate 52.” and/or “We have determined that polypropylene sheet having a thickness of about 5mm and provided with welded ribs has a stiffness that is sufficient to withstand deformation or flexing by forces experienced in use of the saddle. Materials such as carbon fibre reinforced plastics sheet materials also provide lightweight solutions but are expensive when compared to polymeric materials.” The examiner asserts none of these acts as a standard for measuring the degree of “flex or deform[ation] under pressures exerted by the girth straps when tightened, in use, on a horse.” the examiner further directs the applicant to page 4 lines 13-22 that describe the term “substantially prevented by the sternum plate from contacting the horse in the region of the ascending pectoral and rectus abdominus muscles of the horse” to which some standard is provided “preferably the sternum plate contacts no more than 20% of the skin of the horse in the area of the muscles, no more than 15%, no more than 10% or no more than 5% of the muscle area.” this is just by way of example the term preferably preceding the range in this case makes the standard a bit ambiguous.
With regard to the alleged amendment remedying the antecedent basis issue of “a horse” as recited in claim 1, the amendment did not make its way onto the record as such the rejection is herein maintained.
With regard to the arguments that the rejections under U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been overcome. The examiner rejected claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 and maintains at the time of mailing claim 17 was rejected as an omnibus claim and was not able to be interpreted accurately on record. The amendments made to claim 1 as presented to the Office on 7/2/2026 shift the scope of claim 1, the limitations pertaining to the shape of the sternum plate had not previously been presented in a way to reasonably convey to the examiner or a POSITA what encompassed the metes and bounds of said shape. As the claims are currently presented, they are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as obvious in view of Marshall since the reference discloses the newly presented limitations of sternum plate being shaped to follow a shape of the horse's rib cage as a circumference of the rib cage enlarges moving backwards and a closed cell foamed polymeric material as described in detail below and the examiner is maintaining the remainer of the rejection where applicable, specifically dependent claims 4, 11-13, & 16 have a shift in claim scope and claims 18 & 19 permit a secondary read of claim 7 these claims will be treated as such and subsequently this action will be properly made final.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 7/2/2026. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 1-17 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.
Claim 1 recites the claim limitation of “a material which will not substantially flex or deform under pressures exerted by the girth straps when tightened” which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such, the intended stiffness to prevent flex/deformation and subsequently the claim have been rendered indefinite. Claims 2-5, 7-16, & 18-19 fail to remedy such deficiency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a horse" in line 7 of the claim which is a limitation that was previously introduced in line 2 of the claim and is repeatedly referenced as “the horse”. This creates a clarity issue; is the same feature or discrete of that similar feature recited earlier in the claim(s). Claims 2-5, 7-16, & 18-19 fail to remedy such deficiency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 10-14, 16, & 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall, U.S. Patent No. 5,816,031 A; herein Marsh.
Re claim 1, as best understood, Marsh discloses a girth for a horse, the girth comprising girth straps (42/44; the strips/nylon webbing, fig. 8-9 & 15-16) and a sternum plate (10; the saddle cinch, fig. 2-16) spacing and bridging the girth straps such that, in use on a horse, the girth straps are prevented by the sternum plate from contacting the horse in the region of the ascending pectoral and rectus abdominus muscles of the horse (fig. 2, the support rib of the cinch contacts the underbelly/surface of the horse not the surface of the straps), wherein the sternum plate comprises a girth plate (12; the rib support member, fig. 5 & 9-16) formed of a material which will not substantially flex or deform under pressures exerted by the girth straps when tightened, in use, on the horse (abstract, col 3; 50-59, and col 4; 27-33, the stiff support rib acts to form a substantially rigid contour to fit a horses girth and resist yielding/hold its shape); and
wherein the sternum plate is shaped to follow a shape of the horse's rib cage as a circumference of the rib cage enlarges moving backwards (fig. 2, col 2; 42-54 & col 3; 30-59, & claim 12, the chinch and rib support member is shaped to follow the horse’s heart girth, a circumference about the horse and its ribcage measured just behind the withers and elbows, where the rib cage is enlarged in a direction moving from the head of the horse to the rear).
Marsh discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the girth plate is formed of polypropylene having a thickness of from 3mm to 8mm, from 4mm to 6mm or 5mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to utilize polypropylene as the stiff polymer having a thickness of 3-8mm in order to sufficiently resist yielding with movement of the horse while allowing the horse to move, since it has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination and discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable supports a case of obviousness when the general conditions of the claim are met by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.07 & 2144.05 II. A.
Re claim 2, as best understood, the modification of Marsh discloses the invention of claim 1, Marsh discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the girth plate explicitly does not deflect or deform when a force of about 20Nm is applied to the girth straps perpendicular to a surface of the girth plate. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to have the girth plate deflect a force that can be applied by a person during installation, since it has been held that that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable supports a case of obviousness when the general conditions of the claim are met by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 II. A.
Re claim 3, as best understood, the modification of Marsh discloses the invention of claim 1, Marsh further discloses wherein the sternum plate further comprises a sternum pad (14; the foam rubber, fig. 9 & 15-16), wherein the sternum pad is positioned proximal to the horse, in use (fig. 9 & 15-16, the rubber foam is proximal to the horse when in position as shown in fig. 2).
Re claim 7, as best understood, the modification of Marsh discloses the invention of claim 1, Marsh further discloses wherein the sternum plate further comprises a proximal layer of foam padding (14; the foam rubber, fig. 9 & 15-16).
Re claim 8, as best understood, the modification of Marsh discloses the invention of claim 1, Marsh further discloses wherein the sternum plate includes an upper cover and a lower cover (16; the outer covering, fig. 3-6, 8-9, & 15-16), optionally wherein the upper and lower covers are formed of leather (col 3; 64-66, wherein the outer cover is leather).
Re claim 10, as best understood, the modification of Marsh discloses the invention of claim 1, Marsh further discloses wherein an upper surface of the sternum plate includes keepers to position the girth straps to prevent longitudinal movement with respect to the sternum plate (fig. 3-4 & 6-7 and col 5; 18-21, the stiches will prevent the straps from disengaging with the rest of the cinch).
Re claim 11, as best understood, the modification of Marsh discloses the invention of claim 3, Marsh further discloses wherein the sternum pad is formed of a closed cell foamed polymeric material (col 2; 47-49, the neoprene).
Re claim 12, as best understood, the modification of Marsh discloses the invention of claim 11, Marsh discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the closed cell foam has a net density of 80-150 kg/m3, or 100-120 kg/m3. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to utilize a foam with a net density of 80-150 kg/m3 to provide the mechanical properties of mechanical durability, structural stability, and energy absorption, since it has been held that that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable supports a case of obviousness when the general conditions of the claim are met by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 II. A.
Re claim 13, as best understood, the modification of Marsh discloses the invention of claim 11, Marsh further discloses wherein the closed cell foam has a thickness of from 15mm to 40mm (col 4; 59-61, the strip of inner rubber foam is ¾ of an inch which is equivalent to ~19mm, if the inner rubber is double ply and only marginally thinner than ¾ of an inch, say 5% thinner, the closed cell foamed polymeric material would have a total thickness of ~36mm).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose the explicit thickness of the outer neoprene layer however, Marsh discloses that the neoprene strip is thinner than the inner rubber foam. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the teachings of Marsh at least overlap and/or lay within the claimed range of 15mm to 40mm. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Re claim 14, as best understood, Marsh discloses the invention of claim 3, Marsh further discloses wherein the sternum pad further comprises an upper cover and a lower cover (16; the outer covering, fig. 3-6, 8-9, & 15-16), wherein the upper and lower covers are formed of leather (col 3; 64-66, wherein the outer cover is leather).
Re claim 16, as best understood, the modification of Marsh discloses the invention of claim 11, Marsh discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the foam has a compression resistance of 9 to 25 kPa. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to have such a compression resistance to provide both cushioning and firm support, since it has been held that that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable supports a case of obviousness when the general conditions of the claim are met by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 II. A.
Re claim 18, as best understood, the modification of Marsh discloses the invention of claim 1, Marsh further discloses wherein the sternum plate further comprises a proximal layer of foam padding (col 2; 47-49, the thin layer of neoprene proximal to the inner rib surface) and wherein the foam padding is a layer of foam padding having a thickness (col 4; 59-61, the strip of inner rubber foam is about ¾ of an inch, if the inner rubber is only marginally thinner than ¾ of an inch, say 5% thinner, the closed cell foamed polymeric material would have a total thickness of ~18mm).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose the explicit thickness of the outer neoprene layer however, Marsh discloses that the neoprene strip is thinner than the inner rubber foam. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the teachings of Marsh disclose a similar thickness to that of the claimed invention, 5mm to 18mm, if the neoprene is only 25% thinner than the inner foam than the neoprene would be ~14mm. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Re claim 19, as best understood, the modification of Marsh discloses the invention of claim 18, Marsh further discloses wherein the foam padding is a closed cell foam (col 2; 47-49, the neoprene).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsh as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kempsell et al., International Patent Publication No. WO 2018/078063 A1, herein Kemp.
Re claim 4, as best understood, Marsh discloses the invention of claim 1, Marsh further discloses wherein the girth plate is formed of a polymeric material (abstract and col 3; 50-56, wherein a stiff polymer is utilized).
Marsh fails to disclose wherein the girth plate is formed of a carbon fibre-reinforced polypropylene. However, Kemp discloses a resilient plate for a saddle formed of a carbon fibre-reinforced polypropylene (abstract, page 3; 29-31, & page 5-6; 29-2, wherein the resilient plate is formed of a polypropylene matrix with reinforcing carbon fibers)
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the girth plate is formed of a carbon fibre-reinforced polypropylene however, Kemp discloses such a material to allow for better pressure distribution. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to look to the suggestion by Kemp to utilize carbon fibre-reinforced PP to allow for the excellent result of a grith plate that allows greater control of the stiffness of the material in specific areas and directions, to give even better pressure distribution throughout the plate. See MPEP 2143 I. (G).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsh as applied to claim 8 above, in view of Chang, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0184678 A1.
Re claim 9, as best understood, Marsh discloses the invention of claim 8, Marsh fails to disclose wherein at least one of the upper and/or lower covers includes perforations to permit air flow between the inside and outside of the sternum plate. However, Change discloses wherein an upper cover (para 18, the inner surface of the belt; 10) includes perforations (21 & 24; the vent holes and indentations, fig. 1-2) to permit air flow between the inside and outside (para 19-21, the ventilation pad acts to promote air flow and heat dissipation as the horse moves) of a sternum plate (20; the ventilation pad, fig. 1-2).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein at least one of the upper and/or lower covers includes perforations to permit air flow between the inside and outside of the sternum plate however, Chang discloses such a technique. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art elements of the ventilation pad taught by Chang to the upper cover of the prior art to yield the predictable result of ventilating and allowing the heat to dissipate from the horse where the girth/cinch is located. See MPEP 2143 I. (A).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsh as applied to claim 14 above, in view of Chang, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0184678 A1.
Re claim 15, as best understood, Marsh discloses the invention of claim 14, Marsh fails to disclose wherein at least one of the upper and/or lower covers includes perforations to permit air flow between the inside and outside of the sternum plate. However, Change discloses wherein an upper cover (para 18, the inner surface of the belt; 10) includes perforations (21 & 24; the vent holes and indentations, fig. 1-2) to permit air flow between the inside and outside (para 19-21, the ventilation pad acts to promote air flow and heat dissipation as the horse moves) of a sternum plate (20; the ventilation pad, fig. 1-2).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein at least one of the upper and/or lower covers includes perforations to permit air flow between the inside and outside of the sternum plate however, Chang discloses such a technique. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art elements of the ventilation pad taught by Chang to the upper cover of the prior art to yield the predictable result of ventilating and allowing the heat to dissipate from the horse where the girth/cinch is located. See MPEP 2143 I. (A).
Conclusion
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 NICOLE P MACCRATE whose telephone number is (571)272-5215. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 9am-5pm EST.
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, Joshua J Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. 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.
/NICOLE PAIGE MACCRATE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
