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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to Claims 1-16, filed October 28, 2025, which are pending in this application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the clasp and prong (claims 4 and 12), modular webbing-compatible openings (claims 5 and 13), the corresponding opening on the armor carrier (claims 6 and 14), a modular webbing pattern (claims 7 and 15), magnets on the accessory panel (in the plural; claims 8 and 16); magnet(s) on the armor carriers (singular or plural as none are shown on the armor carrier; claims 8 and 16), and the modular webbing-compatible openings on the armor carrier (claim 13) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification is missing sections (g) and (h) as described above.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “attachment members” in claims 1-2, 7, 9-10, and 15 as “members” is a generic placeholder and “attachment” mean “an act of attaching” and no further structure is claimed to perform the act of attaching.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 2, 5-8, and 13-16 are 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.
Claims 2, 7-8, and 15-16 each recites, “the one or more attachment members” but then recite a corresponding structure on the armor carrier that is written in the form of a plural such as structures (claim 2), openings (claim 7 and 15), magnets (claim 8 and 16). It is unclear if the one attachment member requires corresponds to a plurality of structures on the armor carrier or if the one attachment member corresponds to a single structure on the armor carrier.
Claim 5 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein the corresponding openings on the armor carrier comprise laser-cut slots or modular webbing-compatible openings.” As the armor carrier was not positively recited, and only functionally recited, in claims 1 and 3, and therefore not required by the claims, it is unclear if the armor carrier is now required by claim 5.
Claims 5 and 13 are indefinite as each recites, “wherein the corresponding openings on the armor carrier comprise laser-cut slots or modular webbing-compatible openings. As claims 3 and 11 each recites, “a corresponding opening”, but claims 5 and 13 recites openings and slots, it is unclear how many openings are being referred to in claims 5 and 13. Further, it is unclear what is meant by “modular webbing-compatible openings” and how the openings are modular or compatible with webbing.
Claim 6 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein the one or more rigid attachment members comprise a wedge and a corresponding opening on the armor carrier to provide alignment and retention.” As the armor carrier was not positively recited, and only functionally recited, in claims 1 and 3, and therefore not required by the claims, it is unclear if the armor carrier is now required by claim 6.
Claims 6 and 14 are indefinite as each recites, “wherein the one or more rigid attachment members comprise a wedge and a corresponding opening on the armor carrier to provide alignment and retention.” It is unclear if the “a corresponding opening” is referring to the corresponding opening recited in claims 3 and 11 or to a different corresponding opening. Further as claims 3 and 11 recite, “wherein the one or more rigid attachment members comprise at least one rigid attachment member”, it is unclear if the wedge is the same attachment member or a different/additional member than the “at least one rigid attachment member” in claims 3 and 11, or if a plurality of attachment members or a plurality of rigid attachment members is required.
Claims 7 and 15 are indefinite as each recites, “wherein one or more attachment members are configured to engage openings on the armor carrier that are sized and spaced according to a modular webbing pattern.” As a modular webbing pattern has not been shown, it is unclear how one of ordinary skill in the art can ascertain what a modular webbing pattern is and how much the openings need to be sized and spaced to accord to a modular webbing pattern.
Claims 8 and 16 are indefinite as each recites, “wherein the one or more attachment members comprise magnets configured to cooperate with corresponding magnets on the armor carrier.” As “one or more attachment members” only requires a single attachment member and only a single magnet is shown in Fig. 35, it is unclear if the one attachment member has a plurality of magnets or if the one attachment member has a magnet (singular).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tien (US 2017/0205204).
Regarding claim 1, Tien discloses an accessory panel (21) configured for removable attachment to an armor carrier (10), the accessory panel comprising one or more attachment members (41; Examiner notes “attachment members” has been interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) and the male portion of a side release buckle as shown in Fig. 1 of Tien is at least a functional equivalent 210 disclosed as “buckles, claps, or prongs” in para. 0066 of the instant application) configured to engage the armor carrier to removably retain the accessory panel on the armor carrier (via 42 and MOLLE loop, see para. 0069).
Examiner notes that italicized limitations in the prior art rejections are functional and do not positively recite a structural limitation, but instead require an ability to so perform and/or function. As the prior art discloses the structure of the accessory panel, there would be a reasonable expectation for the structure to perform such functions, as Examiner has explained after each functional limitation.
Regarding claim 2, Tien discloses wherein the one or more attachment members (41) are positioned along an upper portion of the accessory panel (21, as seen in Fig. 1) to cooperate with corresponding structures (42 and MOLLE loop) on the armor carrier (see para. 0069).
Regarding claim 3, Tien discloses wherein the one or more attachment members (41) comprise at least one rigid attachment member (either of 41 can be considered rigid as they are the male portion of a side release buckle and rigid in comparison to at least one other material) disposed on the accessory panel (see Fig. 1) and dimensioned to be received within a corresponding opening (female opening/socket 42 and/or MOLLE loop) on the armor carrier to resist movement of the accessory panel relative to the armor carrier (as such an arrangement would hold at least the top of the panel in place).
Regarding claim 4, Tien discloses wherein the rigid attachment member (either of 41) comprises a buckle (side release buckle, see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Tien discloses wherein the corresponding openings (MOLLE loop) on the armor carrier comprise modular webbing-compatible openings (as the MOLLE system is considered modular webbing-compatible openings).
Regarding claim 6, Tien discloses wherein the one or more rigid attachment members (41) comprise a wedge (as 41 can be considered a wedge) and a corresponding opening (female opening/socket 42 and/or MOLLE loop) on the armor carrier to provide alignment and retention (as such an arrangement would hold at least the top of the panel in place).
Regarding claim 7, Tien discloses wherein one or more attachment members (41) are configured to engage openings (MOLLE loop, see para. 0069) on the armor carrier that are sized and spaced according to a modular webbing pattern (as seen in Fig. 2)
Regarding claim 9, Molle discloses a modular armor system comprising: an armor carrier (10); and an accessory panel (21) removably attachable to the armor carrier (via 41/42 and MOLLE loop, see para. 0069), the accessory panel having one or more attachment members (41; Examiner notes “attachment members” has been interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) and the male portion of a side release buckle as shown in Fig. 1 of Tien is at least a functional equivalent 210 disclosed as “buckles, claps, or prongs” in para. 0066 of the instant application) configured to engage the armor carrier to removably retain the accessory panel on the armor carrier (via 42 and MOLLE loop, see para. 0069).
Examiner notes that italicized limitations in the prior art rejections are functional and do not positively recite a structural limitation, but instead require an ability to so perform and/or function. As the prior art discloses the structure of the system, there would be a reasonable expectation for the structure to perform such functions, as Examiner has explained after each functional limitation.
Regarding claim 10, Tien discloses wherein the one or more attachment members (41) are positioned along an upper portion of the accessory panel (21, as seen in Fig. 1) to cooperate with corresponding structures (42 and MOLLE loop) on the armor carrier (see para. 0069).
Regarding claim 11, Tien discloses wherein the one or more attachment members (41) comprise at least one rigid attachment member (either of 41 can be considered rigid as they are the male portion of a side release buckle and rigid in comparison to at least one other material) disposed on the accessory panel (see Fig. 1) and dimensioned to be received within a corresponding opening (female opening/socket 42 and/or MOLLE loop) on the armor carrier to resist movement of the accessory panel relative to the armor carrier (as such an arrangement would hold at least the top of the panel in place).
Regarding claim 12, Tien discloses wherein the rigid attachment member (either of 41) comprises a buckle (side release buckle, see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Tien discloses wherein the corresponding openings (MOLLE loop) on the armor carrier comprise modular webbing-compatible openings (as the MOLLE system is considered modular webbing-compatible openings).
Regarding claim 14, Tien discloses wherein the one or more rigid attachment members (41) comprise a wedge (as 41 can be considered a wedge) and a corresponding opening (female opening/socket 42 and/or MOLLE loop) on the armor carrier to provide alignment and retention (as such an arrangement would hold at least the top of the panel in place).
Regarding claim 15, Tien discloses wherein one or more attachment members (41) are configured to engage openings (MOLLE loop, see para. 0069) on the armor carrier that are sized and spaced according to a modular webbing pattern (as seen in Fig. 2)
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) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tien as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Martinez (US 2021/0045470).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Tien discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 9 above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more attachment members comprise magnets configured to cooperate with corresponding magnets on the armor carrier.
Martinez teaches attachment members for tactical vests wherein the one or more attachment members (end portion 36) comprise magnets configured to cooperate with corresponding magnets on the armor carrier (see Fig. 14 and para. 0039).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the attachment member of Tien with the attachment member as taught by Martinez, as a simple substitution of one well known attachment member for another in order to yield the predictable result of securely fastening the accessory panel to the armor carrier. See MPEP 2143 B.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, Strum (US 2012/0017347) teaches an auxiliary gear attachment system using buckles, Thompson (US 2022/0316842) teaches securement for tactical garments using a wedge inserted into an opening, and Matson (US 10143294) teaches using clips to connect accessories to a tactical vest.
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
Prosecution Insights