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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/20/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-15, drawn to a harness system and spine, classified in A45F3/14; and
II. Claims 16-20, drawn to a bull handle clamping system, classified in A01G3/06.
Inventions I and II are related as subcombinations usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. See MPEP § 806.05(d). In this case, (i) the harness system and spine can be used with a tool that does not have the claimed bull handle clamping mechanism, and (ii) the bull handle clamping mechanism can be used with a harness that does not have the claimed spine system, or with no harness at all. The subcombinations as claimed do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants of one another.
The examiner has required restriction between subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because at least the following reason(s) apply:
Distinct separate searches (keyword and classification) are required to examine each subcombination.
Different references would need to be considered to examine each subcombination.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone call on 5/8/2026, Timothy Kang elected invention I (claims 1-15) with traverse.
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.
REJECTION BASED ON LOWE
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 4,860,936 to Lowe in view of US Patent 5,887,836 to Back.
Regarding claim 1, Lowe discloses a spine for a harness system, the spine comprising: an inner plate (14) comprising: a set of locking notches (20) arranged along a first direction; an outer plate (24) wherein sliding movement is enabled between the inner plate and outer plate (Fig. 1); and a hinged locking element (30) having a tab (35) to selectively engage the set of locking notches, wherein a length of the spine is varied by varying the locking notch of the set of locking notches into which the tab of the hinged locking element is engaged (Fig. 1 – when the uppermost notch is engaged, 24 is positioned above the edge of 14 to vary the length as claimed). Lowe fails to disclose the claimed rail/channel. However, Back discloses a slidable connection including a rail (14) and a channel (16) wherein the rail is to rest within the channel (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used a rail/channel connection at the outer sides of the inner/outer plates in Lowe because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent slidable connection element for another to obtain predictable results. In the combination, the locking element would be positioned between the rails and the tabs would engage notches in the inner plate.
Regarding claim 2, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein: the inner plate further comprises: a second set of locking notches (20 – Lowe) arranged along the first direction; and a second rail (14 – Back) extending in the first direction; the outer plate further comprises: a second channel (16 – Back), wherein the second rail of the inner plate is to slidably engage the second channel (Back Fig. 1); and a second hinged locking element (30 – Lowe) having a second tab (35 – Lowe) to selectively engage the second set of locking notches.
Regarding claim 3, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein the inner plate further comprises a slot (Lowe Fig. 1 – main opening between notches 20) positioned between the set of locking notches and the second set of locking notches, and wherein the hinged locking element and the second hinged locking element are to be positioned within the slot when the inner plate is slidably engaged with the outer plate (Lowe Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein the outer plate comprises a body having an opening (Lowe/Back – main middle opening between the rails formed when Back’s rails are added at the sides of Back’s outer plate) into which the hinged locking element and the second hinged locking element extend (the hinged locking element is between the rails (Lowe Fig. 1/Back), and wherein the hinged locking element and the second hinged locking element are resiliently mounted to the body and are biased toward opposite sides of the body (Lowe Fig. 1 – legs of the locking element are biased outwardly, which biases the tabs outwardly).
Regarding claim 7, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein the hinged locking element further comprises: a first living hinge (Lowe Annotated Fig. 1) connecting the tab of the hinged locking element to the body, wherein the tab extends away from the first living hinge toward a first edge of the body (Lowe Annotated Fig. 1); and wherein the second hinged locking element further comprises: a second living hinge (Lowe Annotated Fig. 1) connecting the second tab of the second hinged locking element to the body; and wherein the second tab extends away from the second living hinge toward a second edge of the body (Lowe Annotated Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
694
699
media_image1.png
Greyscale
REJECTION BASED ON FAWCETT
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 9,918,540 to Fawcett in view of Lowe and Back.
Regarding claim 1, Fawcett discloses a spine for a harness system, the spine comprising: a first adjustable member (lower telescoping portion of 2A) and a second adjustable member (upper telescoping portion of 2A) wherein a length of the spine is varied by varying the position of the adjustable members (Fig. 1). Fawcett fails to disclose plates or the claimed locking configuration. However, Lowe discloses a slidable connection including a set of locking notches (20) on an inner plate and a hinged locking element (30) having a tab (35) to selectively engage the set of locking notches on an outer plate (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used Lowe’s slidable plates with locking notches and hinged locking element in Fawcett because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent slidable resizing element for another to obtain predictable results. The combination fails to disclose the claimed rail/channel. However, Back discloses a slidable connection including a rail (14) and a channel (16) wherein the rail is to rest within the channel (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used a rail/channel connection at the outer sides of the inner/outer plates in the combination because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent slidable connection element for another to obtain predictable results. In the combination, the locking element would be positioned between the rails and the tabs would engage notches in the inner plate.
Claim(s) 4-5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fawcett, Lowe and Back, further in view of US Patent 10,729,195 to Truelove.
Regarding claim 4, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein the inner plate further comprises an inner plate connection mechanism (6C – Fawcett) to connect the inner plate with a shoulder member of the harness system. The combination fails to disclose how the connection mechanism is secured to the shoulder member. However, Truelove discloses a harness that includes connections made using bolts and nuts (Col. 3, lines 28-31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used bolts and nuts to secure the inner plate connection mechanism to the shoulder member because the modification only involves choosing from a finite number of predictable connection methods to use. Alternatively, the modification would only involve a simple substitution of one known, equivalent connection for another to obtain predictable results. In the combination, the inner plate connection mechanism (which includes the bolts and nuts) is removable (by removing the bolts/nuts), and the inner plate connection mechanism comprises a top cover piece (nut) that is to be fastened to the inner plate and securely hold a connecting member (bolt) that is to be mounted to a shoulder member of the harness system.
Regarding claim 5, the combination from claim 4 discloses wherein the connecting member comprises a pin (central pivot member of 6C (Fawcett) is a pin), and wherein the inner plate is to be rotatably mounted on the pin to enable the spine to be rotatable relative to the shoulder member.
Regarding claim 8, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein the outer plate further comprises an outer plate connection mechanism (6A – Fawcett) to rotatably connect the outer plate with a belt member of the harness system. The combination fails to disclose how the connection mechanism is secured to the belt member. However, Truelove discloses a harness that includes connections made using bolts and nuts (Col. 3, lines 28-31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used bolts and nuts to secure the outer plate connection mechanism to the belt member because the modification only involves choosing from a finite number of predictable connection methods to use. Alternatively, the modification would only involve a simple substitution of one known, equivalent connection for another to obtain predictable results. In the combination, the outer plate connection mechanism (which includes the bolts and nuts) is removable (by removing the bolts/nuts).
Claim(s) 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fawcett in view of Lowe.
Regarding claim 9, Fawcett discloses a harness system comprising: a shoulder member (3, 4, 5); a belt member (1); and a spine (2a) comprising: a first member (upper portion of telescopic connection) connected to the shoulder member; and a second member (lower portion of telescopic connection) connected to the belt member. Fawcett fails to disclose plates or the claimed locking configuration. However, Lowe discloses a slidable connection including a set of locking notches (20) on an inner plate and a pair of hinged locking elements (34) having tabs (35) to selectively engage the set of locking notches on an outer plate (Fig. 1), wherein the inner plate is in sliding engagement with the outer plate and the inner plate is lockable into a plurality of positions with respect to the outer plate based on the locking notches to which the tabs of the pair of hinged locking elements are engaged (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used Lowe’s slidable plates with locking notches and hinged locking elements in Fawcett because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent slidable resizing element for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 11, the combination from claim 9 discloses wherein the inner plate further comprises a slot (Lowe Fig. 1 – main opening between notches 20) positioned between a first set of the plurality of locking notches and a second set of the plurality of locking notches, and wherein the pair of hinged locking elements are positioned within the slot (Lowe Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 10 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fawcett and Lowe, further in view of Back.
Regarding claim 10, the combination from claim 9 fails to disclose the claimed rail/channel. However, Back discloses a slidable connection including a rail (14) and a channel (16) wherein the rail is to rest within the channel (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used a rail/channel connection at the outer sides of the inner/outer plates in the combination because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent slidable connection element for another to obtain predictable results. In the combination, the locking element would be positioned between the rails and the tabs would engage notches in the inner plate.
Regarding claim 13, the combination from claim 10 discloses wherein the outer plate comprises a body having an opening (Lowe/Back – main middle opening between the rails) into which the hinged locking elements extend (the hinged locking elements are between the rails (Lowe/Back).
Regarding claim 14, the combination from claim 9 discloses wherein each of the pair of hinged locking elements comprises: a first living hinge (Lowe Annotated Fig. 1 above) that connects a first tab of a first hinged locking element to the body and a second living hinge (Lowe Annotated Fig. 1) that connects a second tab of a second hinged locking element to the body (Lowe Annotated Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, the combination from claim 9 discloses wherein the first hinged locking element comprises a first lever element (Lowe Fig. 1 – grip at end of one leg 34) at a free end of the first living hinge and the second hinged locking element comprises a second lever element (Lowe Fig. 1 – grip at end of other leg 34) at a free end of the second living hinge.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fawcett and Lowe, further in view of Truelove.
Regarding claim 12, the combination from claim 9 discloses wherein the inner plate further comprises an inner plate connection mechanism (6C – Fawcett) to rotatably connect the inner plate with the shoulder member and the outer plate comprises an outer plate connection mechanism (6A) to rotatably connect the outer plate with the belt member (Fawcett Fig. 1). The combination fails to disclose how the connection mechanisms are secured to the shoulder and belt members. However, Truelove discloses a harness that includes connections made using bolts and nuts (Col. 3, lines 28-31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used bolts and nuts to secure the connection mechanisms to the shoulder and belt members because the modification only involves choosing from a finite number of predictable connection methods to use. Alternatively, the modification would only involve a simple substitution of one known, equivalent connection for another to obtain predictable results. In the combination, connection mechanisms (which include the bolts and nuts) are removable (by removing the bolts/nuts).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references disclose configurations similar to that disclosed by applicant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT T MCNURLEN whose telephone number is (313)446-4898. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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.
/SCOTT T MCNURLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights