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 statements (IDSs) submitted on 1/14/2025, 2/28/2025, 10/31/2025 and 6/9/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species
Figs. 159-161, drawn to a locking carrying device with a rear clip (claims 1-5 and 12-19);
Figs. 162-164, drawn to a locking carrying device with a rear backpack strap attachment (claims 1-4, 6-7 and 12-19); and
Figs. 165-168, drawn to a locking carrying device with a rear pole receiver (claims 1-4 and 8-20).
The species are independent or distinct because the claims directed to each species recite mutually exclusive characteristics. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, claims 1-4 and 12-19 are generic to all species.
There is a search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply:
Different searches (keyword and/or classification) are required to examine each species.
Different references would need to be considered to examine each species.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve 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 election of species 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 on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them 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 species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
A phone call placed to Paul Johnson on 8/6/2026 resulted in the election of Species B (Figs. 162-164; claims 1-4, 6-7 and 12-19) without traverse. Claims 5, 8-11 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent 10,711,941 to Sura.
Regarding claim 1, Sura discloses a locking carrying device, comprising: a base member (Annotated Fig. 1A below); a clip receiver coupled with the base member (Annotated Fig. 1A), the clip receiver comprising a cavity (20) and an opening (22 – opening at front) providing access to the cavity, the clip receiver configured for receiving a clip (the clip receiver is capable of this intended use); and a lock (16) coupled with the base member, the lock configured to alternate between: an unlocked configuration allowing the clip to enter and exit the cavity (Fig. 1A); and a locked configuration preventing the clip from exiting the cavity (Fig. 1B).
PNG
media_image1.png
669
1044
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sura Annotated Fig. 1A
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, 12, and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sura in view of US Patent 9,097,490 to Tseng.
Regarding claim 2, Sura fails to disclose a sliding lock. However, Tseng discloses a lock (2) for a connection wherein the lock is configured to slide within a slot (slot in upper portion of 10 for receiving lock 2 – Figs. 2-3) of the base member to alternate between the unlocked configuration (Fig. 3) and the locked configuration (Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used a sliding lock in Sura because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent locking element for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 4, the combination from claim 2 discloses a stop (18 – Tseng) secured to an end of the slot to prevent the lock from exiting the slot.
Regarding claim 12, Sura discloses a locking carrying assembly, comprising: a coupler having a clip (14 is a narrow attachment member, similar to applicant’s clip), the coupler configured for coupling with an item to be carried (14 is capable of coupling to an item; see Figs. 6A-B for example); and a locking carrying device, comprising: a base member (Annotated Fig. 1A above); a clip receiver coupled with the base member (Annotated Fig. 1A), the clip receiver comprising a cavity (20) and an opening (22 – opening at front) providing access to the cavity; a lock (16) movable between an unlocked configuration allowing the clip to enter and exit the cavity (Fig. 1A); and a locked configuration preventing the clip from exiting the cavity (Fig. 1B); wherein the clip receiver is configured to receive the clip to secure the item to be carried to the locking carrying device (Fig. 1B). Sura fails to disclose a sliding lock. However, Tseng discloses a slot (slot in upper portion of 10 for receiving lock 2 – Figs. 2-3); a lock (2) secured within the slot (Figs. 2-3), wherein the lock is configured to slide between the unlocked configuration (Fig. 3) and the locked configuration (Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used a sliding lock in Sura because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent locking element for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 14, the combination from claim 12 discloses a stop (18 – Tseng) secured to an end of the slot to prevent the lock from exiting the slot.
Regarding claim 15, the combination from claim 12 discloses wherein the coupler comprises a gun coupler configured for securing to a gun (14 is capable of securing to a gun, either directly or by securing to a holster holding the gun).
Regarding claim 16, Sura as modified by Tseng discloses a method of use of a locking carrying device, comprising: securing an item (70 – Sura) to a coupler (Sura Figs. 6A-B), the coupler including a clip (14 (Sura) is a narrow attachment member, similar to applicant’s clip); securing the clip within a clip receiver of a base member of a locking carrying device (Sura Annotated Fig. 1A above); and sliding a lock (2 – Tseng), secured within a slot (Tseng Figs. 2-3 – slot in upper portion of 10 for receiving lock 2) of the base member, to a locked configuration (Tseng Fig. 2/Sura Fig. 1B), the locked configuration preventing the clip from fully exiting the clip receiver.
Regarding claim 17, the combination from claim 16 discloses sliding the lock to an unlocked configuration (Tseng Fig. 3/Sura Fig. 1A), the unlocked configuration allowing the clip to fully exit the clip receiver.
Claim(s) 3, 13 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sura and Tseng, further in view of US Published Application 2008/0164291 to Goradesky.
Regarding claim 3, the combination from claim 2 fails to disclose a recess and protrusion. However, Goradesky discloses a connection including a recess (604, 606, 608) and a protrusion (522) for mating with the recess for securing the moving part in a desired position. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used a recess on the lock and protrusions on the slot to keep the lock in the unlocked and locked configurations because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent position locking method for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 13, the combination from claim 12 fails to disclose a recess and protrusion. However, Goradesky discloses a connection including a recess (604, 606, 608) and a protrusion (522) for mating with the recess for securing the moving part in a desired position. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used a recess on the lock and protrusions on the slot to keep the lock in the unlocked and locked configurations because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent position locking method for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 19, the combination from claim 16 fails to disclose a recess and protrusion. However, Goradesky discloses a connection including a recess (604, 606, 608) and a protrusion (522) for mating with the recess for securing the moving part in a desired position. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used a recess on the lock and protrusions on the slot to keep the lock in the unlocked and locked configurations because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent position locking method for another to obtain predictable results. The combination discloses wherein sliding the lock to the locked configuration further comprises mating a recess of the lock with a protrusion of the slot.
REJECTION BASED ON SCHESSEL
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 10,085,544 to Schessel in view of Sura.
Regarding claim 1, Schessel discloses a locking carrying device (Fig. 5A-B). Schessel fails to disclose the claimed details of the carrying device. However, Sura discloses a carrying device comprising: a base member (Annotated Fig. 1A above); a clip receiver coupled with the base member (Annotated Fig. 1A), the clip receiver comprising a cavity (20) and an opening (22 – opening at front) providing access to the cavity, the clip receiver configured for receiving a clip (the clip receiver is capable of this intended use); and a lock (16) coupled with the base member, the lock configured to alternate between: an unlocked configuration allowing the clip to enter and exit the cavity (Fig. 1A); and a locked configuration preventing the clip from exiting the cavity (Fig. 1B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used Sura’s attachment to attach an item to Schessel’s strap clamp because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent connection method for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schessel and Sura, further in view of US Published Application 2004/0135047 to Hunt and US Patent 1,489,572 to Bennewitz.
Regarding claim 6, the combination from claim 1 fails to disclose one or more through-holes in the clamp configured for tightening the base member to a second member to secure the base member to a strap of a backpack. However, Hunt discloses a clamp that includes two separate members (18 top/bottom) and holes through each member (holes for receiving bolts 20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have structured the clamp in the combination with two separate members and holes allowing for tightening fasteners because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent clamp element for another to obtain predictable results. The combination fails to disclose whether the holes would be in the base member. However, Bennewitz discloses a clamp in which the held object (15) is integral with the base member (10) and holes are through the base member for receiving tightening members (Figs. 1, 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have made the base member integral with one of the clamp members in the combination because it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schessel, Sura, Hunt and Bennewitz, further in view of US Patent 6,510,592 to Hamilton.
Regarding claim 7, the combination from claim 6 fails to disclose one or more ridges at a back of the base member. However, Hamilton discloses a clamp that uses ridges (81, 82) to secure the clamp on a strap. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used ridges (Hamilton) instead of protrusions (Schessel) on the clamping surfaces because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent position securing element for another to obtain predictable results.
REJECTION BASED ON WESSELS
Claim(s) 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 11,585,634 to Wessels in view of Sura and Tseng.
Regarding claim 16, Wessels discloses a method of use of a carrying device including securing an item (3) to a coupler (1, 2). Wessels fails to disclose the claimed details of the use of the carrying device. However, Sura discloses a method of use of a locking carrying device, comprising: securing an item (70 – Sura) to a coupler (Sura Figs. 6A-B), the coupler including a clip (14 (Sura) is a narrow attachment member, similar to applicant’s clip); securing the clip within a clip receiver of a base member of a locking carrying device (Sura Annotated Fig. 1A above); moving a lock (16) to a locked configuration, the locked configuration preventing the clip from fully exiting the clip receiver (Fig. 1B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used Sura’s attachment in Wessels because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent connection for another to obtain predictable results. The combination fails to disclose a sliding lock. However, Tseng discloses sliding a lock (2), secured within a slot (Figs. 2-3 – slot in upper portion of 10 for receiving lock 2) of the base member, to a locked configuration (Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used a sliding lock in the combination because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent locking element for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 18, the combination from claim 16 discloses wherein the item comprises a firearm (3 – Wessels) and the coupler comprises a firearm coupler (firearm (3 – Wessels) is secured to coupler (14 – Sura) using the holes in 14 or any other known attachment method), such that securing the item to the coupler comprises securing the firearm to the firearm coupler.
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