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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/21/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2-10, 15-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 2, 15, there is no support in the original disclosure for parallel side portions and thus it constitutes new matter. In particular, the original disclosure is silent regarding side portions being parallel.
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) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US 2005/0056643 to Hagan et al. (Hagan).
Regarding claim 21, Hagan discloses an adjustable pouch (Fig 1) comprising a pouch body (10) including a front portion, a rear portion, a first side portion and a second side portion (14) and a bottom portion (16) that define an interior, a first side channel (31) defined along a first width of the first side portion (14, Fig 4), a second side channel (31) defined a long the first width of the first side portion and spaced away from the first side channel (31), a third side channel (31) defined along a second with of the second side portion (14, Fig 4), a fourth side channel (31) defined along the second width of the second side portion and spaced away from the third side channel, one or more first straps (31, Fig 4) disposed lengthwise across the front portion and defining a first set of channels defined along the pouch body, one or more second straps (31, Fig 4) disposed lengthwise across the rear portion and defining a second set of channels defined along the pouch body, a first elongated member (22) extending through the first set of channels, the first side channel, the second side channel, third side channel, fourth side chhanel and the second set of channels thereby connecting the front, rear, first and second side portion such that the first elongated member is adjustable to tighten the pouch body and modify a volume of the interior of the pouch body by dynamically adjusting a distance between each of the respective edges (€0018). In particular, Hagan discloses each of the eyelet channels can be replaced with straps (€0017, Fig 4).
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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagan in view of US Patent No. 5,704,528 to Faure.
Regarding claim 12, Hagan discloses the pouch of claim 21 but does not teach straps being an upper and lower strap. Faure discloses adjustable container (Fig 2) and in particular discloses upper and lower channels (84, 86) for elongated members for facilitating closing and adjustment of the interior. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate both an upper and lower strap for channels to the Hagan container as suggested by Faure in order to facilitate closing and adjustment of the container.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagan in view of US Patent No. 5,133,489 to Loew.
Regarding claim 13, Hagan teaches the pouch of claim 21 but does not teach a second elongated elastic member connected to the body. Loew discloses a container (Fig 1) having an elastic member (24) configured to extend around and apply a bias to an article (40) disposed in the interior space of the container for facilitating retaining of the article within the space (Loew, abstract). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate an elongated elastic member configured to apply a bias to an article to the container of Hagan as suggested by Loew in order to facilitate retaining of the article (Loew, abstract).
Claim(s) 2-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2006/0169690 to Rothschild et al. (Rothschild) in view of US Patent No. 5,201,867 to Morszeck.
Regarding claim 2, Rothschild discloses an adjustable pouch (Fig 7a-7e) comprising a body (700) having a front portion (702), a rear portion (703), a first side portion and a second side portion (704) each collectively extend from a bottom portion and collectively define an interior space (Fig 7C), first side channel (A, Fig 7b below) defined along width of the first side portion, second side channel (B, Fig 7b below) defined along width of second side portion, second side portion being substantially parallel to first side portion (rectangular, €0184), two front channels (openings) along the front portion, two rear channel (openings) along the rear portion, a first elongated elastic member (elastic band 701, see claim 3 of specs) extending through the front channels, first side channel, second side channel, rear channels and connecting the front, rear, side portions (Fig 7a). Rothschild does not teach front and rear strap defining two channels such that the elastic member extends through both channels and the side channels defined along the width. However, Morszeck discloses an arrangement wherein a single strap (20) comprises at least two channels (openings at either end) where an elongated member extends through both channels. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the channel openings of Rothschild with a functionally equivalent strap comprising two channel openings for insertion of the elongated member since it has been held that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results would have been obvious. In re Fout , 675 F.2d 297, 213USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). The modification would have resulted in the side channels being defined along the width of the side.
PNG
media_image1.png
438
727
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Rothschild further discloses respective edges of the front (702), rear (703), and side portions (704) are not directly connected to each other (they are connected by webbing 710, Fig 7D).
Regarding claim 4, Rothschild further discloses first elongated elastic member (701) configured to evenly tighten the pouch body (700) and adjustable to modify volume of interior space of the pouch body since it has the structure as recited.
Regarding claim 5, Rothschild further discloses elongated elastic member (701) defining first free end (705) and second free end (706) secured together (Fig 7c).
Regarding claim 6, Rothschild further discloses elastic member (701) can be adjusted using a fastener (buckles, snaps, other fasteners, €0108).
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothschild in view of Morszeck and Loew.
Regarding claim 7, the modified Rothschild teaches the pouch of claim 2 but does not teach a second elongated elastic member connected to the body. Loew discloses a container (Fig 1) having an elastic member (24) configured to extend around and apply a bias to an article (40) disposed in the interior space of the container for facilitating retaining of the article within the space (Loew, abstract). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate an elongated elastic member configured to apply a bias to an article to the container of Rothschild as suggested by Loew in order to facilitate retaining of the article (Loew, abstract).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Rothschild further teaches the elastic member connected to pouch body with a tab member (28, Loew).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Rothschild further teaches elastic member (24, Loew) extending through retention member (26, Loew).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothschild in view of Morszeck, Loew and US 2010/0008601 to Prudencio.
Regarding claim 10, the modified Rothschild teaches the pouch of claim 7 but does not teach the elastic member having free ends that are secured together. Prudencio discloses a pouch (Fig 3) and in particular discloses elastic member (7) that is configured to apply bias to an article and has two free ends to be secured (Fig 2-3). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the second elastic member of the modified Rothschild with one having free ends as suggested by Prudencio to facilitate bias of an article since it has been held that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results would have been obvious. In re Fout , 675 F.2d 297, 213USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Claim(s) 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 5,765,748 to Chen in view of Morszeck.
Regarding claim 15, Chen discloses an adjustable pouch (Fig 14) comprising a bottom portion (20) extending between a front edge, a rear edge, a first and second bottom side edge (16), a front portion (30) having a pair of opposing front side edges extending from the front edge of the bottom portion, the front portion bendable along the front edge of the bottom portion, a channel (85) across the front portion, a rear portion (30) having a pair of opposing rear side edges extending from the rear edge of the bottom portion, the rear portion bendable along rear edge of the bottom portion, a first side portion (30) having a pair of opposing first side edges, the first side portion extending from the first bottom edge of the bottom portion, the first side portion bendable along the first bottom edge of the bottom portion, a first side channel (85) defined in a first end of the first side portion, a second side portion (30) having a pair of opposing second side edges, the second side portion extending from the second bottom edge of the bottom portion, the second side portion bendable along the second bottom edge of the bottom portion, a second side channel (85) defined in a second end of the second side portion, the second side channel being parallel to the first side channel (Fig 14), an elongated elastic member (60) flexibly binding the front, rear and side portions together forming an adjustable interior of a pouch body, the pair of opposing front edges, opposing rear edges, opposing first and second side edges being loose from each other permitting independent movement of the front, rear, first and second side portion. Chen does not teach a strap defining two channels such that the elastic member extends through both channels and the side channels being defined along the width of the side portions. However, Morszeck discloses an arrangement wherein a single strap (20) comprises at least two channels (openings at either end) where an elongated member extends through both channels. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the channel openings of Chen with a functionally equivalent strap comprising two channel openings for insertion of the elongated member since it has been held that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results would have been obvious. In re Fout , 675 F.2d 297, 213USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). Furthermore, the modification would have resulted in the side channels being defined along the width of the side due to the elongated strap as taught by Morszeck.
Regarding claim 16, Chen further discloses elongated elastic member including a string (60).
Regarding claim 17, Chen further discloses the interior of the body capable of receiving a plurality of ammunition since it has the structure as recited.
Regarding claim 18, Chen further discloses the elongated member (60) providing even bias with the front, rear, side portions since the channels are arranged evenly.
Regarding claim 19-20, Chen further discloses the pouch made of material that can be polymer-based plastic (col. 6, ll. 30-35).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Initially, it is noted that applicant does not argue the rejection of the dependent claims. Applicant argues that none of the applied references teach side channels being parallel. Assuming arguendo that applicant has support for the claimed limitation, applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the side channels are located on the same plane and on opposite side portions and thus would be parallel to each other as shown in the figures.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT POON whose telephone number is (571)270-7425. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:30 am to 6:00 pm.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571)272-4561. 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.
/ROBERT POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights