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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Steinberg (US Patent no. 1560493). Steinberg discloses a bag (figure 1) for being disposed with an object (24), the object disposing structure comprising: a main body (bag body 1-3 and sheets 22); 5a character unit (sheet 22 with printed names “P.Stern M6170” “Smith, J. Col 926” in figure 1) fixed to the main body and provided with at least one stroke; and at least one retaining and coupling unit (20-21, figures 1 and 2) disposed with the main body for retaining and coupling the object (24) in a way that a shape of the object (24) and the character unit are substantially and visually located on a same plane (figure 1), and as soon as the object is 10coupled with the at least one retaining and coupling unit or after the object is coupled with the at least one retaining and coupling unit for a predetermined period of time, the shape of the object forms a part of the at least one stroke of the character unit to result in that a semantic meaning of the character unit remains unchanged or changes.
Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Palagano (US Publication no. 20210120931). Palagano discloses a bag (10, figure 1) for being disposed with an object (20), the object disposing structure comprising: a main body (15); 5a character unit (16) fixed to the main body and provided with at least one stroke (16); and at least one retaining and coupling unit (18, figure 3) disposed with the main body (15) for retaining and coupling the object (20) in a way that a shape of the object and the character unit are substantially and visually located on a same plane, and as soon as the object is 10coupled with the at least one retaining and coupling unit or after the object is coupled with the at least one retaining and coupling unit for a predetermined period of time, the shape of the object forms a part of the at least one stroke of the character unit to result in that a semantic meaning of the character unit remains unchanged or changes.
Regarding claims 1, the “word or currency symbol” is considered to be “printed matter”. The word or currency symbol can be replaced with any suitable printed matter.
Since the claimed printed matter/indicia is not functionally related to the bag, the printed matter has not been given patentable weight. Here the only difference between a prior art product and a claimed product is printed matter that is not functionally related to the product, the content of the printed matter will not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. In re Ngai ** » 367 F.3d 1336, 1339, 70 USPGed 1862, 1864 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Regarding claim 2, the object disposing structure as claimed in claim 1, Palagano discloses wherein the character unit (16) is monolithically formed with the main body (15).
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 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palagano (US Publication no. 20210120931) in view of Clarke (US Patent no. 7891733).
Palagano discloses an object disposing structure comprising all the claimed features of applicant’s invention as discussed above except for wherein the object is a pen, and the at least one retaining and coupling unit is configured as being a sleeve for holding the pen. Clark discloses a bag (11) for being disposed with an object (writing implements as discussed in see column 3, lines 3-5 and shown dashline in sleeve 22, figure 1) comprising main body (11), at least one retaining and coupling unit (22) disposed with the main body for retaining and coupling the object (writing implement) in a way that the shape of the object and the exposed surface of the bag are substantially and visually located on a same plane; wherein the object can be a pen (see column 2, lines 3-5), and the at least one retaining and coupling unit (22) is configured as being a sleeve for holding the pen.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to have modify Palagano’s fastening and coupling unit such that wherein the object is a pen, and the at least one retaining and coupling unit is configured as being a sleeve for holding the pen as taught to be desirable by Clark.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Palagano (US Publication no. 20210120931) in view of Anderson et al (US Publication no. 20130032502) or Steinberg (US Patent no. 1560493).
Palagano discloses a bag (10, figure 1) for being disposed with an object (20), the object disposing structure comprising: a main body (15); 5a character unit (16) fixed to the main body and provided with at least one stroke (16); and at least one retaining and coupling unit (18, figure 3) disposed with the main body (15) for retaining and coupling the object (20) in a way that a shape of the object and the character unit are substantially and visually located on a same plane, and as soon as the object is 10coupled with the at least one retaining and coupling unit or after the object is coupled with the at least one retaining and coupling unit for a predetermined period of time, the shape of the object forms a part of the at least one stroke of the character unit to result in that a semantic meaning of the character unit remains unchanged or changes.
Regarding claims 1, the “word or currency symbol” is considered to be “printed matter”. The word or currency symbol can be replaced with any suitable printed matter.
Since the claimed printed matter/indicia is not functionally related to the bag, the printed matter has not been given patentable weight. Here the only difference between a prior art product and a claimed product is printed matter that is not functionally related to the product, the content of the printed matter will not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. In re Ngai ** » 367 F.3d 1336, 1339, 70 USPGed 1862, 1864 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
However, for the sake of argument, Anderson et al teaches a bag (10, figure 1) with letters and symbols that can be attached to the bag.
Steinberg discloses a bag (figure 1) for being disposed with an object (24), the object disposing structure comprising: a main body (bag body 1-3 and sheets 22); 5a character unit (sheet 22 with printed names “P.Stern M6170” “Smith, J. Col 926” in figure 1) fixed to the main body and provided with at least one stroke; and at least one retaining and coupling unit (20-21, figures 1 and 2) disposed with the main body for retaining and coupling the object (24) in a way that a shape of the object (24) and the character unit are substantially and visually located on a same plane (figure 1), and as soon as the object is 10coupled with the at least one retaining and coupling unit or after the object is coupled with the at least one retaining and coupling unit for a predetermined period of time, the shape of the object forms a part of the at least one stroke of the character unit to result in that a semantic meaning of the character unit remains unchanged or changes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to have modify the bag of Palagano such that the printed matter/indicia are letters as taught to be desirable by Anderson or Steinberg.
Regarding claim 2, Palagano and Anderson combined or Palagano and Steinberg combined discloses the object disposing structure as claimed in claim 1 as discussed above wherein Palagano discloses wherein the character unit (16) is monolithically formed with the main body (15).
Claim 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palagano (US Publication no. 20210120931) in view of Anderson et al (US Publication no. 20130032502) or Steinberg (US Patent no. 1560493) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Clarke (US Patent no. 7891733).
Palagano and Anderson combined or Palagano and Steinberg combined discloses an object disposing structure comprising all the claimed features of applicant’s invention as discussed above except for wherein the object is a pen, and the at least one retaining and coupling unit is configured as being a sleeve for holding the pen. Clark discloses a bag (11) for being disposed with an object (writing implements as discussed in see column 3, lines 3-5 and shown dashline in sleeve 22, figure 1) comprising main body (11), at least one retaining and coupling unit (22) disposed with the main body for retaining and coupling the object (writing implement) in a way that the shape of the object and the exposed surface of the bag are substantially and visually located on a same plane; wherein the object can be a pen (see column 2, lines 3-5), and the at least one retaining and coupling unit (22) is configured as being a sleeve for holding the pen.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to have modify Palagano’s fastening and coupling unit such that wherein the object is a pen, and the at least one retaining and coupling unit is configured as being a sleeve for holding the pen as taught to be desirable by Clark.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks section, filed 10/14/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-2 under Kothari in view of Clark have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Steinberg (US Patent no. 1560493). Palagano in view of Anderson et al (US Publication no.20130032502) or Steinberg (US Patent no. 1560493) as outlined above.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/2/2025 regarding Palagano is that “Palagano only discloses patterns on the bag, with neither text nor text components. When an object is combined with the decorative magnetic or ferromagnetic material (18), the object cannot cooperate with the patterns to form a word with specific meaning”. As discussed in the previous Office actions, the “word or currency symbol” is considered to be “printed matter”. The word or currency symbol can be replaced with any suitable printed matter.
Since the claimed printed matter/indicia is not functionally related to the bag, the printed matter has not been given patentable weight. Here the only difference between a prior art product and a claimed product is printed matter that is not functionally related to the product, the content of the printed matter will not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. In re Ngai ** » 367 F.3d 1336, 1339, 70 USPGed 1862, 1864 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
However, for the sake of argument each of the newly cited patent to Anderson (US Publication no. 20130032502) and Steinberg (US Patent no. 1560493) clearly shows printed matter can be symbols or letters (18, figures 1-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to provide printed matter to be letters as taught by Anderson or Steinberg.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art of record further demonstrate an object disposing structure of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ko (Korie) H Chan whose telephone number is (571)272-6816. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday, 8:00 - 5:00 EST.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached on 571-272-8227. 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.
/Ko H Chan/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Khc