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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 5-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 24 April 2026.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that the figures for Species C are misidentified. This is not found persuasive because while Figure allocation may have been in error, the identification of the patentably distinct Species present within the application is still considered proper.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gaddy (US 2019/0098964).
Regarding claim 1, Gaddy discloses an apparatus comprising:
a flexible strap (105), comprising an elongated body in a longitudinal direction that includes a plurality of apertures (325) defined therethrough perpendicular to the longitudinal direction; and
a link (110), comprising a plurality of strap attachment studs,
wherein each of the strap attachment studs comprises a neck portion (@220 and 225) and an enlarged head portion (including opposed points 210),
wherein the head portion defines a diameter greater than the neck diameter and greater than a diameter of the apertures defined through the flexible strap (Figs. 1A-1C as shown).
Regarding claim 2, Gaddy further discloses wherein the elongated body of the flexible strap comprises a series of adjacently-disposed donut-shaped portions that are connected on opposing sides with an adjacent donut portion, and wherein the plurality of apertures are defined as holes centered in each donut-shaped portion (Figs. 3A-3C as shown).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaddy as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mckee et al. (US 2021/0298399).
Regarding claim 3, Gaddy discloses the invention except for wherein the flexible strap comprises a plurality of magnets disposed inside of the strap, wherein each of the plurality of magnets is disposed in one of the donut-shaped portions.
Mckee et al. teaches a strap (101) with magnets (107) installed in a spaced manner (Fig. 1 as shown).
From this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to include magnets in a spaced manner in the flexible strap of Gaddy including the donut-shaped portions. Inclusion of magnets would provide greater versatility to the strap allowing for easier installation wherein the strap can be magnetically held to a magnetic object prior to full securement of the studs within the donut shaped apertures. Furthermore, magnets would allow for easier storage of the strap wherein the magnets would allow the strap to be folded over itself and held in place.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaddy as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fildan (US D410411).
Regarding claim 4, Gaddy discloses the invention except for wherein the link comprises a rigid planar plate, and wherein the strap attachment studs each protrude from a common planar side of the rigid planar plate.
Fildan teach a fastener wherein first and second attachment studs protrude from a common planar plate side (Fig. 5 as shown).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the fastener of Fildan in place of the fastener of Gaddy wherein Fildan uses same side protruding heads in place of the opposed arrows of Gaddy. The arrangement would make it easier to install the strap to the head mounts and would also limit bends in the strap that could potentially weaken the strap over time. With the fastener in place on the surface of an object(s) to be wrapped, a strap can be easily secured to the fastener heads without bending the fastener. Furthermore, this arrangement allows for secure placement of the fastener prior to attachment of bands.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaddy as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fildan and Ribeiro (US 5,915,629).
Regarding claim 8, Gaddy disclose the invention except for wherein the link comprises a plate, including a four corner portions, wherein one of the strap attachment studs is disposed on each of the four corner portions and each strap attachment stud protrudes from a common one of the opposing broad sides of the plate, and wherein an aperture is defined through the plate in a location centered between the strap attachment studs.
Fildan teaches wherein a link comprises a plate wherein strap attachment studs protrude from a common broad side of a plate and wherein an aperture is defined through the plate in a location centered between the strap attachment studs (Figs. 1-5 as shown).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the link of Gaddy with the link of Fildan wherein Fildan uses same side protruding heads in place of the opposed arrows of Gaddy. The arrangement would make it easier to install the strap to the head mounts and would also limit bends in the strap that could potentially weaken the strap over time. With the fastener in place on the surface of an object(s) to be wrapped, a strap can be easily secured to the fastener heads without bending the fastener. Furthermore, this arrangement allows for secure placement of the fastener prior to attachment of bands. The central aperture provided of Fildan also allows free ends of the straps to pass under the device to prevent interference of the strap ends with the opposed studs.
Ribeiro teaches wherein it was known to use strap links wherein four opposed straps ends are attached at four opposed ends.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fildan to include four studs at opposed corners since Riberiro teaches the use of a strap link with four strap ends for enhanced grip about non-elongated items (such as a box-shaped item) and it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Regarding claim 9, the combination device of Gaddy, Fildan and Riberio further discloses wherein the aperture has rounded corners (Figs. 1-5 of Fildan as shown).
Regarding claim 10, the combination device of Gaddy, Fildan and Riberio further discloses wherein the rectangular aperture is sized to allow the flexible strap to pass therethrough (Figs. 1-5 of Fildan as shown).
Claim(s) 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaddy as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fildan and Zitron et al. (US 2020/0047948).
Regarding claim 11, Gaddy discloses the invention except for wherein the head portion of each of the strap attachment studs comprises a longitudinally inward facing side and a longitudinally outward facing side when viewed from a rear side of the modular utility tool, wherein the inward facing side is more elongated than the outward side.
Fildan teaches a fastener with solid heads protruding from a plate (Figs. 1-5 as shown) and Zitron et al. teaches a fastener with a stud (190) with an elongated inward side more elongated than an elongated outward side (Fig. 25 as shown) protruding from a plate .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the fastener of Fildan in place of the fastener of Gaddy wherein Fildan uses same side protruding heads in place of the opposed arrows of Gaddy. The arrangement would make it easier to install the strap to the head mounts and would also limit bends in the strap that could potentially weaken the strap over time. With the fastener in place on the surface of an object(s) to be wrapped, a strap can be easily secured to the fastener heads without bending the fastener. Furthermore, this arrangement allows for secure placement of the fastener prior to attachment of bands. Further altering the heads of Fildan with shaped heads of Zitron et al. would allow for easier entry of the elongated heads into the apertures of a strap.
Regarding claim 12, the combination device of Gaddy, Fildan and Zitron et al. further discloses wherein the inward facing side defines a flat distal surface connected to a base via a pair of adjacent facets on both an upper side and a lower side thereof, and wherein a width of the inward facing side narrows as it extends from the base towards the flat distal surface (Figs. 19a-25 of Zitron et al. show wherein the head has the geometry as claimed).
Regarding claim 13, the combination device of Gaddy, Fildan and Zitron et al. further discloses wherein the outward facing side shares a common base with the inward facing side and tapers as it extends to a distal outward surface via a pair of linear sidewalls (Figs. 19a-25 of Zitron et al. show wherein the head has the geometry as claimed).
Regarding claim 14, the combination device of Gaddy, Fildan and Zitron et al. further disclose wherein, in a top elevation view, the head portion of each of the strap attachment studs has a thickest portion at a midline and taper thinner toward the respective flat distal surface and distal outward surface (Figs. 19a-25 of Zitron et al. show wherein the head has the geometry as claimed).
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 1-4 and 8-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/196,910 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Application No. 18/196,910 discloses [a flexible strap, comprising an elongated body in a longitudinal direction that includes a plurality of apertures defined therethrough perpendicular to the longitudinal direction] (see lines 2-4 of claim 1 as filed 26 September 2025); and [a link, comprising a plurality of strap attachment studs] (line 5), [wherein each of the strap attachment studs comprises a neck portion and an enlarged head portion] (lines 9-10), [wherein the head portion defines a diameter greater than the neck diameter and greater than a diameter of the apertures defined through the flexible strap] (lines 11-12).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chan (US 2017/0297792) Atkinson et al. (US 2019/0308560) and Khokar (US 6,196,751) teach strap links used for four strap ends. Scandora (US 2013/0298356) teaches a cord with spaced magnets to enhanced cord management and folding.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5735. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Jason San can be reached at (571) 272-6531. 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.
/MICHAEL S LEE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights