DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-14, in the reply filed on 6/16/26 is acknowledged.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-14, 21-26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,158,322. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim the same essential assaulter belt assembly having a first thermoplastic layer with windows and upper and lower bindings and a second layer on the back side of the first layer, opening defined at the upper edge between the layers, and an inner belt assembly.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 4 the phrase “the plurality of windows” should be deleted or amended to complete the phrase. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1, 2, 4, 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkins (US 11,470,950) in view of Yewer, Jr. (US 5,581,810).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, 8-10 , Hawkins discloses an assaulter belt assembly substantially as claimed, including: a first layer 8/10 comprising a thermoplastic composite material and a plurality of windows 16 (PALS pattern) spaced apart along a length of the first layer; a second layer 17 extending along a back side of the first layer and coupled to the first layer, coupling mechanisms 48/49. Hawkins does not disclose a binding on the upper and lower edges of the first layer. However, Yewer discloses that it is know not provide a binding strip 24 that folded over the edges of the belt and coupled thereto by single needle stitching pattern 42 – see col. 2 lines 17-22. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a first and second binding on the upper and lower edges of the first layer 8/10 “for comfort to prevent direct contact between edges of the [belt] and the user and for aesthetics” – see Yewer col. 2 lines 17-22.
Claim(s) 12-13 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkin in view of Yewer, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Beck (US 2017/0000249).
Regarding claims 12-13, modified Hawkins discloses the invention substantially as claimed but does not disclose a third layer and inner belt as claimed. Beck teaches that it is known to provide a back side of tactical belt with a third layer 132 of loop fasteners that engage corresponding hook fasteners 134 on the outer surface of an inner belt 108. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide Hawkins with an inner belt and hook and loop fasteners on the back side of the second layer and front side of the inner belt in order to provide comfort to the user – see p. [0023].
Regarding claims 21-14, Hawkins in view of Yewer and Back, as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 8-10, and 12-13 discloses the invention as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5-7, 11, 14, 25 and 26 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 (and pending approval of the appropriate terminal disclaimer to obviate the double patenting rejection).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COREY NELSON SKURDAL whose telephone number is (571)272-9588. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-4pm 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, 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.
/COREY N SKURDAL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights