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 § 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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peng (CN 111358149 A).
Regarding claim 12, Peng discloses a backpack (Fig. 1) comprising: a main body including a front side and a rear side (noting sides facing out of the page, and into the page); a shoulder strap (3) extending from a first fixed end at an upper portion of the rear side to a second free end, and a slip lock member (2) coupled with the shoulder strap, wherein the slip lock member includes a front side facing away from the main body, a rear side facing toward the main body (noting sides of 2 pacing away and into the page), and a window (noting the portion through which 1 is visible) with a crossbar extending across the window that separates the window into a first slot and a second slot, and a bulk strap (4) including a plurality of indicia markings arranged along a portion of the bulk strap, wherein the bulk strap extends from behind the shoulder strap and through the first slot, over the crossbar and through the second slot of the slip lock member of the shoulder strap (Fig. 1) such that a portion of the bulk strap including a single indicia marking (noting indicia 7, as shown in Fig. 1) of the plurality of indicia markings is disposed over the crossbar and the single indicia marking is visible at the window when the bulk strap is moved to different positions in relation to the slip lock member (Abstract).
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) 2, 4-6, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng (CN 111358149 A) in view of KR 20170000416 U.
Regarding claim 2, Peng discloses a backpack comprising: a main body (Fig. 1) including a front side and a rear side (noting a side facing out of the page, and the other side facing into the page), a shoulder strap (3) extending from a first fixed end at an upper portion of the rear side to a second free end; and a shoulder strap structure coupled with the shoulder strap and comprising a slip lock member (2) disposed along a portion of the shoulder strap (noting it is attached near a distal end thereof), wherein the slip lock member includes a first portion, the first portion including a window with a crossbar extending across the window that separates the window into a first slot and a second slot such that the crossbar and each of the first slot and the second slot are disposed within the first portion (noting the area through which scale symbol 1 is viewable).
Peng does not specifically disclose a first flat portion extending to a second flat portion and the second flat portion extending at an angle of less than 45° outward and away from the first flat portion.
KR 20170000416 U demonstrates a slip lock including a first flat portion (extending from portions 200 to 500) extending to a second flat portion (noting the portion extending from 500 to the lower distal end as shown in Figs. 3(a) and 3(b)) and the second flat portion extending at an angle of less than 45° outward and away from the first flat portion (noting the angle of the first flat portion extends generally along a vertical axis, and the angle of the second flat portion is angled less than 45 degrees from the vertical axis).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Peng and use the teaching of KR 20170000416 U and shape the device such that a crossbar and window is located in a first flat portion and including a second flat portion extending at an angle of less than 45 degrees because such a change would allow the device to present a portion that is easier for a user to grab in order to adjust the strap within the buckle, or to adjust how the buckle interacts with the strap i.e. how hard or easy it is for the strap to be adjusted relative to the buckle.
Regarding claim 4, modified Peng demonstrates a bulk strap (4) that extends from behind the shoulder strap and through the first slot, over the crossbar and through the second slot of the slip lock member of the shoulder strap (Fig. 1); wherein the bulk strap includes a plurality of markings arranged along a portion of the bulk strap (Fig. 1), and the window of the slip lock member exposes a portion of the bulk strap that extends through the first slot (noting the strap visible at 1), over the crossbar and through the second slot of the slip lock member such that a single marking (noting 7, as demonstrated in Fig. 1) of the plurality of markings is visible at the window when the bulk strap of the shoulder strap is moved to different positions in relation to the slip lock member.
Regarding claim 5, modified Peng discloses the bulk strap is adjustable to adjust an alignment of the backpack in relation to shoulders of a user when the backpack is worn by the user (Abstract of the translation).
Regarding claim 6, modified Peng discloses the markings comprise a series of sequential numbers spaced from each other along the length dimension of each bulk strap (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, modified Peng discloses a method of leveling a backpack in relation to shoulders of a user wearing the backpack (Abstract), the backpack comprising a main body (Fig. 1) and a pair of shoulder straps (3), the main body including a front side and a rear side (noting sides facing outward and into the page, Fig. 1), the method comprising: facilitating placement of each shoulder strap over a corresponding shoulder of the user (Abstract), each shoulder strap extending from a first fixed end at an upper portion of the rear side to a second free end (Fig. 1); and adjusting a shoulder strap leveling structure coupled with each of the shoulder straps, the shoulder strap leveling structure comprising a first bulk strap (4) and a corresponding first slip lock member (2) secured at a portion of one of the shoulder straps and a second bulk strap and a corresponding second slip lock member secured at a portion of the other of the shoulder straps (Fig. 1), wherein the adjusting comprises: adjusting the first bulk strap in relation to the first slip lock member such that a free end of the first bulk strap extending beyond the first slip lock member changes with the adjusting (Abstract), and adjusting the second bulk strap in relation to the second slip lock member such that a free end of the second bulk strap extending beyond the second slip lock member changes with the adjusting (Abstract, Fig. 1), wherein: each of the first and second bulk straps includes a plurality of markings arranged along a length dimension of the bulk strap (Fig. 1); each of the first and second slip lock members includes a first portion, the first flat portion including a window with a crossbar extending across the window that separates the window (noting the viewable portion 1) into a first slot and a second slot such that the crossbar and each of the first slot and the second slot are disposed within the first portion, and each of the first bulk strap and the second bulk strap is adjusted with the first slip lock member or the second slip lock member by moving a portion of the first bulk strap or the second bulk strap through the first slot, over the crossbar and through the second slot of the first slip lock member or the second slip lock member such that a single marking of the first bulk strap visible at the window (noting the indicia 7, as demonstrated in Fig. 1) of the first slip lock member is a same single marking of the second bulk strap visible at the window of the second slip lock member.
Peng does not specifically disclose a first flat portion extending to a second flat portion and the second flat portion extending at an angle of less than 45° outward and away from the first flat portion.
KR 20170000416 U demonstrates a slip lock including a first flat portion (extending from portions 200 to 500) extending to a second flat portion (noting the portion extending from 500 to the lower distal end as shown in Figs. 3(a) and 3(b)) and the second flat portion extending at an angle of less than 45° outward and away from the first flat portion (noting the angle of the first flat portion extends generally along a vertical axis, and the angle of the second flat portion is angled less than 45 degrees from the vertical axis).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Peng and use the teaching of KR 20170000416 U and shape the device such that a crossbar and window is located in a first flat portion and including a second flat portion extending at an angle of less than 45 degrees because such a change would allow the device to present a portion that is easier for a user to grab in order to adjust the strap within the buckle, or to adjust how the buckle interacts with the strap i.e. how hard or easy it is for the strap to be adjusted relative to the buckle.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng (CN 111358149 A) in view of KR 20170000416 U as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Godshaw et al. (US 2002/0145018 A1)(Godshaw).
Regarding claim 7, Peng discloses the bulk strap includes a first end that extends through the first slot, over the crossbar and through the second slot of the slip lock member, but does not specifically disclose an anchor pad extending from the rear side and/or another side of the main portion, or the second end that secures to the anchor pad.
Godshaw teaches the ability to have a backpack including shoulder straps having lower adjustable strap portions, and a first anchor pad (34) extending from the rear side at or near a first lengthwise side edge of the backpack and a second anchor pad (36) extending from the rear side at or near a second lengthwise side edge of the backpack (Fig. 1), and each lower adjustable strap portion secures to one of the first and second anchor pads at the first free end of the bulk strap (Fig. 1, noting fastener 70/72).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Peng and include similar anchor pads similar to that of Godshaw to which the bulk straps are attached because such a change would provide additional support when the backpack is worn on a person as suggested by Godshaw.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng (CN 111358149 A) in view of Funo (CN 1903092 A).
Regarding claim 13, Peng does not specifically disclose the crossbar includes a pair of walls that extend toward the main body and taper toward each other to define an edge of the crossbar located between the first slot and the second slot.
Funo demonstrates a similar belt adjuster including crossbar (31) includes a pair of walls that extend toward the main body (Fig. 6, noting the walls tapering to a point facing toward the right) and taper toward each other to define an edge of the crossbar (Fig. 6) located between the first slot and the second slot.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Peng and configure the crossbar over which the strap extends similar to that of Funo because such a change would help control the interaction between the crossbar and the rest of the clip relative to the bulk strap thereby helping to control the force it takes to adjust the buckle relative to the strap.
Regarding claim 14, to the degree that it is unclear if Peng demonstrates the slip lock member further includes a second crossbar disposed on the rear side of the slip lock member, the second crossbar providing a coupling engagement with a portion of the shoulder strap.
Funo further demonstrates a similar belt adjuster that includes a second crossbar (11) disposed on the rear side of the slip lock member (noting a side toward the right as shown in Fig. 6), the second crossbar providing a coupling engagement with a portion of the shoulder strap.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Peng and include a second crossbar located at a rear side of the slip lock because such a change would require choosing a well-known attachment structure between a shoulder strap and slip lock and would have yielded predictable results.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng (CN 111358149 A) in view of Bakker et al. (US 4,171,555 A)(Bakker).
Regarding claim 15, Peng does not specifically disclose the slip lock member further includes a plurality of grooves disposed on the rear side of the slip lock member and extending in a lengthwise dimension of the slip lock member.
Bakker discloses a similar slip lock including a plurality of grooves (60) disposed on a rear side of the slip lock member and extending in a lengthwise dimension of the slip lock member to prevent bunching.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Peng and use the teaching of Bakker and include a plurality of grooves on a rear side of the slip lock member in a location that in use is proximal to the surface of the bulk strap in order to prevent bunching as suggested by Bakker.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng (CN 111358149 A) in view of KR 20170000416 U.
Regarding claim 16, Peng does not specifically disclose a first flat portion extending to a second flat portion and the second flat portion extending at an angle.
KR 20170000416 U demonstrates a slip lock including a first flat portion (extending from portions 200 to 500) extending to a second flat portion (noting the portion extending from 500 to the lower distal end as shown in Figs. 3(a) and 3(b)) and the second flat portion extending at an angle outward and away from the first flat portion (noting the angle of the first flat portion extends generally along a vertical axis, and the angle of the second flat portion is angled less than 45 degrees from the vertical axis).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Peng and use the teaching of KR 20170000416 U and shape the device such that a crossbar and window is located in a first flat portion and including a second flat portion extending at an angle of less than 45 degrees because such a change would allow the device to present a portion that is easier for a user to grab in order to adjust the strap within the buckle, or to adjust how the buckle interacts with the strap i.e. how hard or easy it is for the strap to be adjusted relative to the buckle.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng (CN 111358149 A) in view of KR 20170000416 U as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Bakker et al. (US 4,171,555 A)(Bakker).
Regarding claim 17, modified Peng demonstrates the first portion includes the window and the crossbar but does not specifically disclose the second portion includes a plurality of grooves disposed on the rear side of the slip lock member and extending in a lengthwise dimension of the slip lock member.
Bakker discloses a similar slip lock including a plurality of grooves (60) disposed on a rear side of the slip lock member on a distal portion of the buckle and extending in a lengthwise dimension of the slip lock member to prevent bunching.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Peng and use the teaching of Bakker and include a plurality of grooves on a rear side of the slip lock member in a location that in use is proximal to the surface of the bulk strap in order to prevent bunching as suggested by Bakker.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng (CN 111358149 A) in view of GB 2096231 A.
Regarding claim 20, Peng does not clearly show the window comprises a cutout through a thickness of the slip lock member, and the crossbar is disposed within the cutout.
GB 2096231 A demonstrates a similar clip having a window that comprises a cutout through a thickness of the slip lock member (Figs. 1 and 3), and a crossbar (46) is disposed within the cutout.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Peng and use the teaching of GB 2096231 A and include a cutout in which the crossbar is disposed because such a change would have required the mere choice of a known clip/slip lock structure over another and would have yielded predictable results.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng (CN 111358149 A) in view of KR 20170000416 U as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Funo (CN 1903092 A).
Regarding claim 11, modified Peng does not specifically disclose tapered walls of the crossbar extend toward the rear side of the main body and meet at an edge of the crossbar between the first slot and the second slot for each of the first and second slip lock members, and the tapered walls restrict movement of the corresponding first bulk strap or second bulk strap in one direction of movement in relation to the first and second slots
Funo demonstrates a similar belt adjuster including crossbar (31) includes tapered walls of the crossbar extend toward the rear side of the main body and meet at an edge of the crossbar between the first slot and the second slot for each of the first and second slip lock members, and the tapered walls restrict movement of the corresponding first strap (Fig. 6, noting the walls tapering to a point facing toward the right) and taper toward each other to define an edge of the crossbar (Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Peng and configure the crossbar over which the strap extends similar to that of Funo because such a change would help control the interaction between the crossbar and the rest of the clip relative to the bulk strap thereby helping to control the force it takes to adjust the buckle relative to the strap.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng (CN 111358149 A) in view of KR 20170000416 U as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Fildan (US 4,843,689 A).
Regarding claim 23, modified Peng discloses the slip lock member includes openings extending through and between the front and rear sides of the slip lock member.
Modified Peng does not specifically disclose the openings consist (only of) of the first slot and the second slot, and the crossbar includes a pair of walls that extend toward the main body and taper toward each other to define an edge of the crossbar located between the first slot and the second slot.
Fildan demonstrates a slip lock member including openings extending through and between the front and rear sides of the slip lock member, the openings consist (only of) of the first slot and the second slot (17/19), and the crossbar (16) includes a pair of walls that (21/20) extend toward the main body (if mounted on a backpack strap) and taper toward each other (Fig. 3) to define an edge of the crossbar located between the first slot and the second slot.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Peng and use the teaching of Fildan and structure the slip lock in a similar way having only a first and second slots, with a crossbar having tapered walls, and attaching one strap with a belt anchoring mechanism because such a change would have required including well-known structure of a slip lock structure and would have yielded predictable results, as well as required choosing one well-known structure over another.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 8-10, 18-19, and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 12, Applicant argues that Peng fails to teach or disclose every feature of claim 12. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Peng demonstrates a generally well-known backpack strap and slide lock configuration with the exception of scale numbers dispersed along the length of the strap. Peng demonstrates a well-known slip lock having a side facing away from the backpack body and a side facing toward the backpack body (out of the page and into the page respectively), and including a first and second slot, (through which strap 4 must extend). Such strap configurations include a strap (4) connected to a lower portion of backpack, the strap extending upward and away from the backpack from a rear side through a slip lock, then the strap is wrapped over a crossbar and through a second slot and routed generally downward from the slip lock. Further the slip lock includes a window whereby a single scale number is visible (as shown below). Further the scale numbers correspond to an adjustment length along the length of the lower strap. Window is defined by the portions surrounding the visible scale of the strap as shown below. It is noted that Peng demonstrates a single marking “7” viewable through the window as shown below.
PNG
media_image1.png
523
410
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
122
114
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Applicant argues that Peng does not teach or suggest the first slot/second slot/crossbar/window features. Examiner respectfully disagrees. But even if it didn’t teach these features. Peng clearly demonstrates the well-known strap routing through a slip lock. KR further demonstrates the ability to have an angled portion as noted above.
Applicant argues that there is no reasonable explanation as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would modify the structure in view of KR. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that angled portion of KR is referred to as a handle (800), and KR notes “The handle 800 is used when it is necessary to adjust the length of the other strap S2 after the other strap S2 is fixed. The handle 800 may be formed as a protrusion or be inclined in the direction of the lower surface of the frame as shown in a side view” (Page 5; 2nd to last paragraph of the translation).
Regarding claim 13, Applicant argues as if the Funo reference is suited for a waist belt rather than a shoulder belt adjustment or the like. Examiner respectfully disagrees with this assertion, and notes that the straps associated with the Funo device are configured precisely the same way as well-known shoulder straps/belts. Funo further demonstrates a crossbar between a first slot and a second slot through which a strap is threaded (shown below in Annotated Fig. 7) and further demonstrates walls of the crossbar that taper toward one another. Examiner notes that one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the ability to look to a known slip-lock device and include attributes thereof and they would require a mere substitution of known structures and would be obvious to try.
PNG
media_image3.png
513
365
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 MATTHEW T THEIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5700. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday - Thursday.
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.
/M.T.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3734
/NATHAN J NEWHOUSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights