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 .
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 1-7,10-17,23,25-28 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.
For claim 1, the limitation of “the relative angle of the two opposing lateral mounting projections” lacks prior antecedent basis.
For claim 5, the limitations of “the lower edges of the two opposing lateral mounting projections” and “the lower edge of the medial mounting projection” lack prior antecedent basis.
For claim 6, the limitations of “the lower edge” and “the lower edge of the lateral mounting projection” lack prior antecedent basis.
For claim 10, the limitation of “may be secured” is unclear because is the front facing secured to the rear body or is it not?
For claim 11, the limitation of “the selected relative angle” lacks prior antecedent basis.
For claim 12, the preamble calls for a saddle tree but then also called for an assembly of prefabricated components parts, thus, the scope of the preamble is unclear as to what applicant wishes to claim, the saddle tree or the assembly of prefabricated components parts? In addition, since claim 12 calls for claim 1, the limitation of “a seat- mounting projection of the adjustable cantle component extending from a cantle body” is unclear because it appears to be claiming another seat-mounting projection and a cantle body due to not stating “said” based on these elements already claimed in claim 1.
For claim 14, the limitation of “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
For claim 16, claim 16 depends on claim 15, which claim 16 appears to be claiming similar subject matter as that in claim 15, which is unclear.
For claim 17, the limitation of “the head and seat portions” lacks prior antecedent basis.
For claim 23, it is unclear because the claim depends on claim 20, which was canceled; thus, claim 23 will not be treated at this time due to the incompleteness of the claim.
For claim 25, it is unclear because the claim depends on claim 18, which was canceled; thus, claim 25 will not be treated at this time due to the incompleteness of the claim.
For claim 26, the limitation of “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). In addition, the limitations of “the head portion component”, “the seat portion component” and “the connecting mid-portion” lack prior antecedent basis. Furthermore, the limitation of “and/or” is indefinite because it creates numerous scenarios. Lastly, it is unclear what are “points” as claimed.
For claim 27, the limitations of “the seat portion component”, “the head portion component”, and “any connecting mid-section” lack prior antecedent basis. In addition, the limitation of “any connecting mid-section” is unclear because “any” can be anything.
For claim 28, the limitation of “the elongate cooperating longitudinal members” lacks prior antecedent basis.
All other claims depending on one or more of the above rejected claims are also rejected the same.
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.
Claims 1-7,10,11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gallo (IT 202100013055 A1).
For claim 1, Gallo discloses an adjustable cantle component (3,3a,3b,30, as shown in fig. 1) for mounting to a seat portion (the middle area where ref. 2a,30,100 are located in fig. 1) of a saddle tree (1), the adjustable cantle component comprising
a cantle body (3) and extending therefrom a seat-mounting projection (3a,32,3b,30; also, translation stated: “the connection members (20a, 20b) comprise respective resilient plates”) configured for mounting to a corresponding mounting part (2a,2b,20 as shown in fig. 1) of the seat portion,
the seat-mounting projection comprising two opposing lateral mounting projections (30 as shown in fig. 1),
wherein the adjustable cantle component is configured such that the relative angle of the two opposing lateral mounting projections may be adjusted between a first mounting angle and a second mounting angle (the angle can be seen from fig. 1 to fig. 3).
For claim 2, Gallo discloses the adjustable cantle component as claimed in claim 1, and further discloses wherein adjustment of the relative angle of the opposing lateral mounting projections changes the shape of the seat-mounting projection (functional recitation to which the adjustment in Gallo does change the angle as stated in the translation and shown from fig. 1 to fig. 3).
For claim 3, Gallo discloses the adjustable cantle component as claimed in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the relative angle of the two opposing lateral mounting projections is adjustable stepwise or continuously between the first mounting angle and the second mounting angle (translation stated: “With reference to the embodiment shown in the figures, the hinges with ball or cardan joint 30 comprise, respectively, a body of the joint integral with one of the front connection portion (2a, 2b) and the rear connection portion (3a, 3b ), and an articulated head rotatable around an axis parallel to the body of the joint and engageable in a pin extending along a respective axis 102 and supported on the other between the front connecting portion (2a, 2b) and the rear connecting portion (3a, 3b).”).
For claim 4, Gallo discloses the adjustable cantle component as claimed in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the seat-mounting projection comprises a medial mounting projection (33,34) disposed between the opposing lateral mounting projections.
For claim 5, Gallo discloses the adjustable cantle component as claimed in claim 4, and further discloses wherein the lower edges of the two opposing lateral mounting projections are aligned with the lower edge of the medial mounting projection (fig. 2, edges of refs. 3a,3b,34,33 aligned where ref. 101 goes through just to the right).
For claim 6, Gallo discloses the adjustable cantle component as claimed in claim 1, and further discloses wherein each of the two opposing lateral mounting projections is adjustable in angle such that the lower edge thereof pivots about a respective pivot point at or proximal to an inner extremity of the lower edge of the lateral mounting projection (pivot point of ref. 30, ball or cardan joint and as shown in fig. 3 with the cantle pivoting up from the position in fig. 1).
For claim 7, Gallo discloses the adjustable cantle component as claimed in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the two opposing lateral mounting projections are movable relative to the cantle body in order to adjust the relative angle thereof (as shown from fig. 1 to fig. 3, and as stated in the translation).
For claim 10, Gallo discloses the adjustable cantle component as claimed in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the cantle body comprises a rear body (fig. 1 where ref. 3 is pointing at) and a front facing (fig. 1 the rest of the cantle area) which may be secured to the rear body (integrally molded and/or with the stitching as shown or lines as shown), wherein the rear body is rigid.
For claim 11, Gallo discloses the adjustable cantle component as claimed in claim 1, and further discloses wherein at the selected relative angle of the two opposing lateral mounting projections, the two opposing lateral mounting projections are rigidly disposed relative to the cantle body (translation stated: “With reference to the embodiment shown in the figures, the hinges with ball or cardan joint 30 comprise, respectively, a body of the joint integral with one of the front connection portion (2a, 2b) and the rear connection portion (3a, 3b ), and an articulated head rotatable around an axis parallel to the body of the joint and engageable in a pin extending along a respective axis 102 and supported on the other between the front connecting portion (2a, 2b) and the rear connecting portion (3a, 3b).”).
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.
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.
Claims 12,13,15,16,26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallo (as above) in view of White et al. (US 3888070 A).
For claim 12, Gallo teaches a modular saddle tree (as shown in the figures) comprising an assembly of prefabricated component parts, the assembly comprising at least:
a seat portion (the middle area where ref. 2a,30,100 are located in fig. 1); and
an adjustable cantle component (3,3a,3b,30, as shown in fig. 1) as defined in claim 1 (see the above explanation of claim 1),
wherein the adjustable cantle is mounted to a mounting part (2a,2b,20 as shown in fig. 1) of the seat portion via a seat-mounting projection (3a,32,3b,30; also, translation stated: “the connection members (20a, 20b) comprise respective resilient plates”) of the adjustable cantle component extending from a cantle body,
wherein the adjustable cantle component serves to stiffen the rear portion of the seat portion and to cause the rear portion of the seat portion to adopt a shape according to a selected relative angle of the two opposing lateral mounting projections.
However, Gallo is silent about wherein the seat portion has a degree of torsional flexibility about a rear portion thereof prior to being mounted with a cantle,
White et al. teach a modular saddle tree comprising a seat portion (6) has a degree of torsional flexibility about a rear portion (7) thereof prior to being mounted with a cantle (the tree is made out of flexible material per col. 2, lines 35-68, col. 3, lines 1-65). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the seat portion of Gallo be made of a flexible material as taught by White et al. so as to allow a degree of torsional flexibility about a rear portion thereof, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious choice (for more flexibility and comfort for the rider and the horse). In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
For claim 13, Gallo as modified by White et al. teaches the modular saddle tree as claimed in claim 12, and further teaches wherein the seat portion comprises two opposing lateral rear wings configured to flex or tilt laterally and which may be fixed in a position by mounting the cantle component to the mounting part of the seat portion (as modified with the flexible material from White et al., the seat portion will flex or tilt; also, fig. 2 of Gallo shows the seat portion area having rear wings, for example, where refs,4,32,20 are located).
For claim 15, Gallo as modified by White et al. teaches the modular saddle tree as claimed in claim 12, and further teaches which comprises a seat portion component defining the seat portion (fig. 1 of Gallo, seat portion components are in the middle) and a head portion component (fig. 1 of Gallo, in the area of ref. 2). However, Gallo as modified by White et al. is silent about wherein the seat and head portion components are secured relative to one another by elongate longitudinal members, whereby a desired longitudinal rigidity is provided to the saddle tree. In addition to the above, White et al. teach the seat portion (fig. 4, in the area of ref. 30) and head portion components (1a) are secured relative to one another by elongate longitudinal members (30), whereby a desired longitudinal rigidity is provided to the saddle tree. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the seat portion of Gallo as modified by White et al. and the head portion of as modified by White et al. be separated and secured relative to one another by elongate longitudinal members as further taught by White et al. in order to provide more flexibility in the front area of the saddle tree.
For claim 16, Gallo as modified by White et al. teaches the modular saddle tree as claimed in claim 15, and further teaches wherein the seat and head portion components are secured relative to one another by cooperating elongate longitudinal members (as stated in the above with White et al.’s teaching).
For claim 26, Gallo as modified by White et al. teaches the modular saddle tree as claimed in claim 12, and further teaches wherein the saddle tree further comprises one or more of: a gullet bar (fig. 2 of Gallo shows gullet bars on the inside of the head portion; also, White et al. teach a gullet bar 2), preferably of steel, mounted to the head portion component; stirrup bar support members formed on or mounted in relation to the head portion component and/or the seat portion component and/or the connecting mid-portion, for supporting stirrup bars, preferably of metal such as aluminium bronze; points mounted to a fore part of the head portion component.
For claim 27, Gallo as modified by White et al. teaches the modular saddle tree as claimed in claim 12, but is silent about wherein the cantle component, seat portion component, head portion component and any connecting mid-section are formed of injection-moulded plastic. In addition to the above, White et al. further teaches the whole saddle tree being made by injection molding plastic (for example, col. 2, lines 34-65). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the cantle component, seat portion component, head portion component and any connecting mid-section of Gallo as modified by White et al. be formed of injection-moulded plastic as further taught by White et al., since such injection molding plastic process is notoriously well-known in the art and implemented in making the saddle tree more stronger.
For claim 28, Gallo as modified by White et al. teaches the modular saddle tree as claimed in claim 12, but is silent about wherein the elongate cooperating longitudinal members are formed of plastic or steel. In addition to the above, White et al. teach elongate cooperating longitudinal members (30) are formed of plastic or steel (col. 3, lines 26-40). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the elongate cooperating longitudinal members of Gallo as modified by White et al. be formed of plastic or steel as further taught by White et al., since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious choice (both plastic and steel plate are known for flexibility). In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallo as modified by White et al. as applied to claims 12,13 above, and further in view of Baumgartner (WO 2006089566 A1).
For claim 14, Gallo as modified by White et al. teaches the modular saddle tree as claimed in claim 13, but is silent about wherein the lateral flexibility or tiltability of the two opposing lateral rear wings is facilitated by longitudinal slots extending forward into the seat portion from a rear edge thereof and preferably aligned with pivot points of the two opposing lateral mounting projections of the cantle component.
Baumgartner teaches a saddle tree comprising longitudinal slots (24a-e) for flexibility in expansion and contraction of the saddle tree (translation stated: “Subsequently, in relation to the longitudinal direction L of the molded part 10, expansion joints 24a, 24b, 224c, 24d and 24e are provided on the left and right side in the region of the waist 14 Adjustment of the elasticity of the saddle tree Sa depending on the intended use of the saddle tree Sa and / or the weight of the rider provided, for example by CNC milling. The exact position and length of the expansion joints 24a, 24b, 24c, 24d and 24e is chosen depending on the purpose and the weight of the rider so that the saddle tree to be produced shows the desired flexibility or deflection. For this purpose, a so-called elastic diagram E can be incorporated in advance in the molded part 10 on the left and right sides in the region of the waist 14. The elastic diagram E consists in the embodiment shown in Fig. 4 of a plurality of dotted lines, each indicating the position of the later to be formed expansion joints.”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include longitudinal slots as taught by Baumgartner extending forward into the seat portion from a rear edge thereof and preferably aligned with pivot points of the two opposing lateral mounting projections of the cantle component in the saddle tree of Gallo as modified by White et al. in order to accommodate for expansion and contraction of the saddle tree.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallo as modified by White et al. as applied to claims 12,15 above, and further in view of Rasia (WO 2021191207 A1).
For claim 17, Gallo as modified by White et al. teaches the modular saddle tree as claimed in claim 15, but is silent about a connecting mid-portion component having a core element defining front and back edges abutting corresponding edges of the head and seat portions and which connecting mid portion is secured to each of the seat portion component and the head portion component.
Rasia teaches a saddle tree comprising a connecting mid-portion component (2a, 5a,5,5b,3a) having a core element defining front and back edges abutting corresponding edges of the head and seat portions (2, the middle area) and which connecting mid portion is secured to each of the seat portion component and the head portion component (figs. 1-4, for example). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a connecting mid-portion component having a core element as taught by Rasia defining front and back edges abutting corresponding edges of the head and seat portions and which connecting mid portion is secured to each of the seat portion component and the head portion component of the saddle tree of Gallo as modified by White et al. in order to further provide flexibility between the head and seat portions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20220106184 A1 teaches a saddle having a pair of rockrail edges along each lateral side of the saddle, where the rockrail edges serve as fulcrums, that bear on multiple, rigid load bearing arms that teeter totter with the horse in motion, instantly morphing to match the horse's back in order to better distribute the weight of a rider. A saddle pad having multiple, rigid load bearing arms that teeter totter about a fulcrum with a conventional saddle, instantly morphing to the horse's back in order to better distribute the weight of a rider and reduce peak loads.
GB 2642334 A teaches modular saddle tree 100 with a saddle tree body 102 with a locating feature 114a, 114b, and a cantle 104 comprising a corresponding locating feature [114a, 114b, fig 3]. The locating features engage to locate the cantle 104 in a predetermined position with respect to the saddle tree body 102. Securing means fasten the cantle 104 to the saddle tree body 102. The locating features may be a lug extending from a lower surface of the cantle rim and a corresponding recess on an upper surface of the saddle tree. The saddle tree may also have bars and a pommel. There may be a plurality of locating features. The saddle may be an English equestrian saddle. A kit of parts is disclosed with a plurality of different cantles which may have different sizes, shapes or dimensions which may be required for different horses or equestrian activities, such as dressage. The locating features ensure a correct placement of the cantle to ensure a good fit for the horse and a comfortable seat for a rider.
DE 10306226 A1 teaches a rear portion (3) is arranged behind a front portion (2). The front and rear portions are connected by connectors (4).
DE 202012101416 U1 teaches a device for a seat pad of a riding or transport animal, comprising a right multi-leg (41) and at least one second leg section (42) and a left multi-leg approach (50) with a first leg section (51) and at least a second leg section (52), wherein A swivel device (61, 63) with a swivel axis (610, 630) is formed between two adjacent leg sections (41, 42, 51, 52), around which the two adjacent leg sections (41, 42, 51, 52) essentially within one Pivot plane (300), which penetrates the pivot axis (610, 630) essentially vertically, can be pivoted relative to one another.
WO 2016009417 A1 teaches a saddle tree comprising a back engaging element (3) for engaging and sitting on the back of an animal and a seat forming element (4) resiliency coupled to the back engaging element (3) adjacent the pommel (5) by a pair of resilient mounting members (8). A limit strap (17) is anchored to the back engaging element (3) and is adjustably coupled to the seat forming element (4) by a ratchet mechanism (20). The limit strap (17) terminates in a grippable element (32) which is releasably grippable by the ratchet mechanism (20). By urging the grippable element (32) in the direction of the arrow A through the ratchet mechanism (20), the limit of upward travel of the seat forming element (4) relative to the back engaging element (3) is reduced, thereby effectively hardening the saddle.
EP 3757061 A1 teaches a saddle having a two part saddle tree. The saddle tree has a top part and a bottom part, with the parts fitting complementarily together. There is also a means provided for securing the two parts together.
DE 202010010216 U1 teaches a riding saddle with a frame (2) having a saddle tree, characterized in that the saddle tree has an upper saddle tree part (4) and a lower saddle tree part (20), the relative height of the lower saddle tree part (20) in relation to the upper saddle tree part (4) is adjustable with one or more height-adjustable spacer elements (24).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SON T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6889. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 to 4:00.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/Son T Nguyen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
