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 Amendment
The amendments filed with the written response received on January 7, 2026 have been considered and an action on the merits follows. As directed by the amendment, claims 1-5 have been amended. Accordingly, claims 1-5 are pending in this application, with an action on the merits to follow regarding claims 1-5.
Because of the applicant's amendment, the following in the office action filed November 6, 2026, are hereby withdrawn:
Objections to the specification.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: reference character 20 in Figs. 1-4.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 3-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 3 and 4 do not have proper markup for amendments and [also] should be written as [[also]];
Claim 5 should recite, “wherein the first strapping stitching segment, the second strapping stitching segment, and the third strapping stitching segment are designed and positioned along the first external webbing band, the second external webbing band, and the third external webbing band, respectively, to hold equipment and to ensure proper weight distribution across the vest.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 1 (and claims 2-5 at least for depending from a rejected claim) is 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 is indefinite as it recites, “the vest being formed of fluorescent background material in an amount sufficient to meet the American National Standards Institute/International Safety Equipment Association (ANSI/ISEA) 107 standard for high visibility work apparel (HVSA) and retroreflective material in an amount sufficient to meet the ANSI/ISEA 107 standard for HVSA, the modular utility latching system of the vest”. It is unclear what is meant by “a sufficient amount”. The vest is either made of fluorescent and retroreflective materials that meets the standard or it's not, and by claiming it as "sufficient amount", it brings into question whether or not it actually meets the standard. Further the specification does not provide for the amount of retroreflective material or fluorescent background material within the vest, and it is further unclear what “a sufficient amount” is. Further as no year has been designated for the standard, it is unclear exactly which standard needs to be met. For example, the original standard is 1999, but has had revisions 2004, 2010, 2015, and 2020, and it is unknown which of these there needs to be a fluorescent background material and retroreflective material in an amount sufficient to meet.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 3 recites, “wherein the first external webbing band is affixed to the third internal webbing support material.” However, claim 2 recites, “a third internal webbing support material… affixed to the first external webbing band” and since when structure X is affixed to structure Y, then structure Y is affixed to structure X, claim 3 does not further limit the subject matter of claim 2.
Claim 4 recites, “wherein the second external webbing band is affixed to the fourth internal webbing support material.” However, claim 2 recites, “a fourth internal webbing support material… affixed to the second external webbing band” and since when structure X is affixed to structure Y, then structure Y is affixed to structure X, claim 4 does not further limit the subject matter of claim 2.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over On Duty Equipment: Our New Original Vest (https://web.archive.org/web/20231206234407/https://onduty.ca/collections/duty-apparel-hi-vis-molle-vest/products/our-new-original-vest), in view of Stansberry (US 2014/0289929), and in view of Cauthen (US 9015880).
Regarding claim 1, On Duty Equipment discloses a high visibility vest (see annotated Figs. below) comprising a modular utility latching system (MOLLE, see description), the vest being formed fluorescent background material (Hi-Vis Yellow) and reflective material (reflective trim), the vest further comprising: a first external webbing band affixed proximate a top portion of an external surface of the vest (see annotated Figs. below), the first external webbing band comprising at least a first strapping stitching segment (see annotated Figs. below and note the MOLLE system vertical stitching along the horizontal bands creating plurality of segments along each band) to provide a first equipment attachment point along the first external webbing band (as each segment provides a point where equipment can be attached); a second external webbing band affixed proximate a middle portion of the external surface of the vest (see annotated Figs. below), the second external webbing band comprising at least a second strapping stitching segment (see annotated Figs. below and note the MOLLE system vertical stitching along the horizontal bands creating plurality of segments along each band) to provide a second equipment attachment point along the second external webbing band (as each segment provides a point where equipment can be attached); a third external webbing band affixed proximate a bottom portion of the external surface of the vest (see annotated Figs. below), the third external webbing band comprising at least a third strapping stitching segment (see annotated Figs. below and note the MOLLE system vertical stitching along the horizontal bands creating plurality of segments along each band) to provide a third equipment attachment point along the third external webbing band (as each segment provides a point where equipment can be attached).
While, On Duty Equipment is made of fluorescent and reflective materials, On Duty Equipment does not expressly disclose the vest being formed of the fluorescent background material in an amount sufficient to meet the American National Standards Institute/International Safety Equipment Association (ANSI/ISEA) 107 standard for high visibility work apparel (HVSA) and the retroreflective material in an amount sufficient to meet the ANSI/ISEA 107 standard for HVSA, and a first internal webbing support material affixed proximate a left internal surface of the vest, wherein the third external webbing band is affixed to the first internal webbing support material; and a second internal webbing support material affixed proximate a right internal surface of the vest, wherein the third external webbing band is affixed to the second internal webbing support material.
Stansberry teaches a vest for compliance with ANSI/ISEA 107 comprising the vest (10) being formed of the fluorescent background material (12) in an amount sufficient to meet the American National Standards Institute/International Safety Equipment Association (ANSI/ISEA) 107 standard for high visibility work apparel (HVSA) and the retroreflective material (11) in an amount sufficient to meet the ANSI/ISEA 107 standard for HVSA (see para. 0016).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use enough fluorescent and reflective materials in the modified vest of On Duty Equipment, to comply with ANSI/ISEA 107, as taught by Stansberry, in order “to enhance the visibility of workers who are exposed to struck-by hazards… for anyone working in a right-of-way or highway work zone” who “must wear garments meeting the standard set out in a revised edition of the standard, ANSI/ISEA 107-2010. The failure to do so may result in the denial of funds to the contractor because of state and federal regulations based upon the standard” (para. 0001 of Stansberry), and “to provide users with a high level of conspicuity through the use of combined fluorescent and retroreflective materials” (para. 0016 of Stansberry).
The modified vest of On Duty Equipment does not expressly disclose a first internal webbing support material affixed proximate a left internal surface of the vest, wherein the third external webbing band is affixed to the first internal webbing support material; and a second internal webbing support material affixed proximate a right internal surface of the vest, wherein the third external webbing band is affixed to the second internal webbing support material.
Cauthen teaches a vest with straps for load bearing comprising the external webbing support bands (11) being affixed to internal webbing support materials (17) at each of strapping stitching (9) (see col. 7, lines 52-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add internal webbing support material affixed behind each stitching area orthogonal to external webbing support band of the modified vest of On Duty Equipment as taught by Cauthen in order to provide “reinforcement in key places” (see col. 4, lines 61-62 of Cauthen) to prevent tearing of the mesh of the vest when forces act on equipment attached to the MOLLE system.
When used in combination, as internal webbing support material is affixed behind each stitching area orthogonal to external webbing support band of On Duty Equipment, then a first internal webbing support material (17 of Cauthen) is affixed proximate a left internal surface of the vest (as the support material can be in between layers, see col. 7, lines 52-60 of Cauthen, thus if used with one layer, then the support material is affixed on a back side of that layer, and any location on the vest is “proximate”), wherein the third external webbing band is affixed to the first internal webbing support material (as the internal webbing support material is located behind each stitching area of each external webbing support band, see annotated Fig. below for band locations); and a second internal webbing support material (17 of Cauthen) is affixed proximate a right internal surface of the vest (as the support material can be in between layers, see col. 7, lines 52-60 of Cauthen, thus if used with one layer, then the support material is affixed on a back side of that layer, and any location on the vest is “proximate”), wherein the third external webbing band is affixed to the second internal webbing support material (as the internal webbing support material is located behind each stitching area of each external webbing support band, see annotated Fig. below for band locations).
Regarding claim 2, the modified vest of On Duty Equipment discloses further comprising a third internal webbing support material positioned proximate and affixed to the first external webbing band, and a fourth internal webbing support material positioned proximate and affixed to the second external webbing band (as On Duty Equipment was modified by Cauthen to add internal webbing support material (17 of Cauthen) affixed behind each external webbing support band).
Regarding claim 3, the modified vest of On Duty Equipment discloses wherein the first external webbing band is affixed to the third internal webbing support material (as On Duty Equipment was modified by Cauthen to add internal webbing support material affixed behind each external webbing support band).
Regarding claim 4, the modified vest of On Duty Equipment discloses wherein the second external webbing band is affixed to the fourth internal webbing support material (as On Duty Equipment was modified by Cauthen to add internal webbing support material affixed behind each external webbing support band).
Regarding claim 5, the modified vest of On Duty Equipment discloses wherein the first strapping stitching segment, the second strapping stitching segment, and the third strapping stitching segment are designed and positioned along their respective external webbing bands to hold equipment and to ensure proper weight distribution across the vest (as is the purpose a MOLLE system).
PNG
media_image1.png
813
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
508
535
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figures of On Duty Equipment
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed January 7, 2026 with respect to 35 USC 103 rejections of claim 1, regarding the fluorescent background material and the retroreflective material in an amount sufficient to meet ANSI/ISEA 107, have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current grounds of rejection. In view of Applicant’s amendment, the search has been updated, and new prior art has been identified and applied. Applicant’s arguments, which appear to be drawn only to the newly amended limitations and previously presented rejections, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant's arguments, regarding the 35 USC 103 rejections of claims 1-5, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
First, Applicant argues that the combined references do not disclose or suggest the claimed internal webbing support system because “Cauthen teaches point reinforcement, not weight distribution across bilateral internal supports” (Remarks, bottom of page 11). Applicant goes on to quote a portion of Cauthen beginning at the bottom of p. 11, however such a quote cannot be found in Cauthen or any of the provided references. In fact, the structure garnered from the quotation appears to be the same structure as the disclosure of the instant application regarding the webbing support bands. As such, it appears Applicant is aware of information regarding the application and such information has not been disclosed by Applicant. Examiner respectfully requests Applicant disclose the source of the quoted material. Further, in response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., weight distribution across bilateral internal supports) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In contrast, Applicant has claimed internal webbing support material proximate a left (or right) internal surface and affixed to the webbing support material the left and right sides (see claim 1). As such, Examiner has modified On Duty Equipment with Cauthen where internal webbing support material is affixed to external webbing bands and is located on an internal surface, and therefore meets the limitations inasmuch as Applicant has claimed. Further, although Applicant has not claimed the internal webbing support as being for weight distribution, even if claimed it would be a recitation of intended use, and a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Second, Applicant argues Examiner has not articulated adequate reasoning to support the combinations because:
“First, the stated motivation merely recites Cauthen's own objective (col. 7, lines 52-55) without explaining why one would apply Cauthen's teaching to On Duty Equipment. This circular reasoning does not satisfy the requirement for articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning” (Remarks, p. 13). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation was found in the art itself and Examiner clearly states why one would apply Cauthen’s teaching “to prevent tearing of the mesh”.
“Second, On Duty Equipment already has internal webbing support at various locations. The annotated figures from On Duty Equipment show internal webbing support materials at multiple points. Thus, one of ordinary skill reviewing On Duty Equipment would have no apparent reason to consult Cauthen for the concept of internal support-On Duty Equipment already employs this concept” (Remarks, p. 13). First, the annotated figures do not show internal webbing support materials in the vest of On Duty Equipment and Applicant has not supplied any figures showing such support. Further, even if internal webbing support material were present, it would be obvious to add addition given the delicate nature of mesh fabric and the weight of items to be supported on a MOLLE system.
“Third, even if one were to look to Cauthen for additional internal support guidance, Cauthen teaches reinforcement at individual stitching points, not the bilateral system spanning left and right internal surfaces as claimed. The Examiner provides no explanation for why one would extrapolate from Cauthen's point reinforcement to the claimed bilateral support system” (Remarks, p. 11). Examiner respectfully disagrees and refers application to the response to the first argument above where Applicant is arguing limitations that are not claimed.
“Fourth, the Examiner's motivation relates only to preventing mesh tearing at attachment points-it does not address the claimed invention's objective of weight distribution across the wearer's body to reduce fatigue and stress on the entire garment. The Examiner has not explained how combining On Duty Equipment with Cauthen's point reinforcement teaching would lead one of ordinary skill to the claimed bilateral internal webbing support system for weight distribution” (Remarks, pages 13-14). Examiner respectfully disagrees and refers application to the response to the first argument above where Applicant is arguing limitations that are not claimed.
“Fifth, the Examiner's rejection implicitly requires multiple modifications” (Remarks, p. 14). Examiner respectfully disagrees. 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). Further, Examiner has explain why one of ordinary still would make these modifications and how the prior art suggests such modifications in the motivation statements provided with each modification above.
Third, Applicant argues the combination would require reconstruction of On Duty Equipment’s design (Remarks, p. 14). Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, any reconstruction would not be substantial as modifying On Duty Equipment to have the claimed structure does not involve more than material and basic sewing skills. Further, the modifications do not change the principle of operation and therefore are not improper. Finally, "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton…. [I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle…. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ."” See MPEP 2141. As such, one of ordinary skill would readily understand how to make the claimed invention without substantial reconstruction.
Fourth, Applicant argues secondary consideration support nonobviousness (Remarks, p. 16). Examiner notes “Affidavits or declarations, when timely presented, containing evidence of criticality or unexpected results, commercial success, long-felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, skepticism of experts, etc., must be considered by the examiner in determining the issue of obviousness of claims for patentability under 35 U.S.C. 103.” See MPEP 716.01. As Applicant has not provided an affidavit or declaration, Applicant argument regarding secondary considerations is not considered at this time.
Fifth, Applicant argues Examiner’s finding regarding dependent claims are insufficient and conclusory. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner has explained that as Cauthen has internal webbing support material affixed behind each stitching area orthogonal to external webbing support band, then it would be obvious to modify On Duty Equipment to add internal webbing support material affixed behind each stitching area orthogonal to external webbing support band. As such, each of the external webbing bands would have integral webbing support material at the areas of orthogonal stitching. Further, Examiner provided proper motivation and such an analysis not conclusory. Further, weight distribution is claimed claim 5 where weight distribution is only attributed to the stitching segments where were already present in On Duty Equipment, and Applicant points out that this is a functional requirement. As such, the limitation does not positively recite a structural limitation, but instead require an ability to so perform and/or function. As On Duty Equipment discloses the structure of the stitching segments, there would be a reasonable expectation for the stitching segments to perform proper weight distribution across the vest, as Examiner has explained after each functional limitation, and inasmuch as has been structurally claimed.
Examiner notes Applicant has not amended to distinguish over the prior art of record.
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 HEATHER MANGINE, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-0673. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
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, Clinton Ostrup can be reached at 571-272-5559. 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.
/HEATHER MANGINE, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732