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Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/28/2026.
Claims 1-10 have been examined on the merits.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Martinez (US 11,779,064). The device of Martinez teaches,
With respect to claim 1, A tactical cummerbund adjustment apparatus comprising: cummerbund straps (30) configured to span between a first panel of a tactical vest to a second panel of the tactical vest across sides of a wearer (Figures 1 and 2);
and an attachment mechanism adapter (80) attached to the cummerbund straps (figure 11) and including an engagement strap (88, 90, 92) configured to be looped through a corresponding slot (44) in a panel attachment mechanism (40) and releasably captured (92) within a locking flap (46) of the attachment mechanism adapter.
With respect to claim 2, wherein the locking flap (46) includes a top flap (46) and a bottom flap (where 44 is located) and wherein the engagement strap (88, 90, 92) is releasably captured within the locking flap (46) when sandwiched between the top flap and the bottom flap (column 3, lines 49-59).
With respect to claim 3, wherein an internal face of a top flap of the locking flap includes a first fastener region (Column 3, liens 49-59, 48) and an internal face of a bottom flap of the locking flap includes a second fastener region (42) and wherein the first fastener region and the second fastener region are complementary (Figure 4).
With respect to claim 8, wherein the first fastener region (48) and the second fastener region (42) comprise complementary hook-and-loop fasteners (Figure 4).
With respect to claim 10, wherein the corresponding slot (44) is of a shape and dimension to allow retention of the engagement strap when the engagement strap is passed through the corresponding slot (Figure 10) and the cummerbund straps are under a load. It is noted that the language “is of a shape and dimension to allow the retention[…]” is a functional recitation. The prior art is of the same shape and relative dimension as the instant invention, and meets the structure as claimed, and therefore would be expected to perform in the same manner under a load, see MPEP 2114.
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) 5 -6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez in view of Snyder (US 4,923,105). The device of Martinez substantially discloses the claimed invention but is lacking a expansion joint and a sheath. The device of Snyder teaches,
With respect to claim 5, wherein at least one of the cummerbund straps (11/12) comprises a first portion (13a) and a second portion (13b) having an expansion joint (11/12 ; column 2 lines 15-25) between the first portion and the second portion (figure 1).
With respect to claim 6, wherein the expansion joint is located within an expansion joint sheath (23) comprising an external face including a mounting surface (exterior face, figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize the expansion joint and sheath as taught by Snyder in order to provide improved adjustability in the fit of the waist circumference and to provide a sheath to provide improved comfort and also additional storage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4, 7 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892
Please Note, the art of recorded cited in the PTO-892 may be relevant to the features of the invention both claimed and unclaimed or are relevant to the overall inventive concept. The best art has been set forward in the office action, as determined by the examiner and the art references provided are to establish other significant and relevant art and to promote compact prosecution.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHALE L QUINN whose telephone number is (571)272-8689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am -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, Clinton Ostrup can be reached at 5712725559. 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.
RICHALE LEE. QUINN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3765
/RICHALE L QUINN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights