DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because on line 3 the term “said” should be amended to -- the --. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carson (US 7,774,864).
Carson discloses a retention/fastening system for securing an article with a pouch (14) attached to a webbing (50) including a pair of rigid or semi-rigid elongated/hingeably connected members/two piece securing loop attachment with front and back pieces separated from one another at least along a portion of their respective lengths by a longitudinal opening for accommodating a rib/recess sewn/stitched in a webbing (50) of the article and jointed to one another at a first respective end of each thereof opposite an open end of the longitudinal opening, col. 2, lines 58-65 and as shown in figure 5. A gate (18) integrally connected to one of the hingeably connected members swings open when the open end of the longitudinal opening is configured not obstruct the open end of the longitudinal opening in a first position and to obstruct the open end thereof when in a second closed position, col. 2, lines 11-30 and as also shown in figure 2. Also, a gap/recess (48) is formed by the pair of elongated members folding under the base portion in the closed position as shown in figure 2. An attachment bracket/pin (32) is displaced from the elongated members by approximately a width of the gap as shown in figure 2.
Further, the gate includes a snap closure system with latch (26) as shown in figure 2.
In addition, a latch/horn (26) and hook section (24) defining a slot and joined to one another at a first respective end of each thereof opposite an open end thereof as shown in figure 2 adapted to fit to the webbing (50) with a conventional MOLLE retention system, col. 2, lines 58-67 and as
shown in figure 5. However, Carlson does not disclose the elongated member having one attachment point.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the
claimed invention that the elongated/hingeably connected members of Carlson substantially
defines an attachment point (40) along an exterior longitudinal edge in order to maintain position
of the device or depending on end use thereof.
With regard to claim 9, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the
effective date of the claimed invention that the elongated connected members of
Carlson defines a recess as shown in figure 2 between latch/horn (26) and hook section (24) substantially along each of the longitudinal outside edges for securing a gate (18) in a removable manner or depending on end use thereof.
With regard to claim 10, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention that the retention system having the ribs of Carlson substantially defines separated adjacent loops from one another to accommodate the elongated members therethrough.
Additionally, with regard to claims 11-14 and 20, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention that the one or more attachment points of Carson can include but not limited to cleat shaped, horns, toggles, bolsters, etc. as such fastening means is considered equivalent as known in the article making art.
With regard to claim 15, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention that the retention system affixed to the article by stitching defining the ribs of Carlson can be affixed but not limited to rivets, etc. as such fastening means is considered equivalent in the art.
Furthermore, with regard to claims 17-18, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention that the retention system with webbing (50) of Carlson can includes but not limited to the connected members being substituted with
snaps, loop and loop shaped securing portions, etc. as an alternative but equivalent means of
fastening the article as known in art with the webbing conforming about the body when the
article is secured thereto.
The “adapted to” recitation in claims 1-20, respectively have not been given patentable
weight since it does not positively limit the metes and bounds of patent protection as desired.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Each of the prior references cited on PTO-892 discloses a retention system having a pair of elongated separated members engaged with a garment webbing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TEJASH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-4993. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 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 (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.
August 4, 2026 /TAJASH D PATEL/ Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights