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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/21/2025 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 20-25 are 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.
Each of claims 20-25 claim the fabric being a blend of polyester and polyether-polyurea copolymer. These material limitations are not supported by the disclosure as originally filed.
Oxford dictionary defines elastane as “an artificial material that stretches easily and is used for making underwear, stockings, etc.”, and does not specify that the material inherently includes a blend of polyester and polyether-polyurea copolymer as now claimed. Collins Dictionary has a similar definition, “a synthetic fibre characterized by its ability to revert to its original shape after being stretched” which similarly fails to support the newly added claim limitations.
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) 1, 12, 13, and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (US 2013/0032502, hereinafter ‘Anderson’) in view of Glazer.
Anderson discloses a system for customizing a carrying bag, comprising a backpack (10), wherein at least one section of the backpack is constructed from a fabric capable of reversibly securing one or more patches (16); where each patch of the one or more patches (18) includes a substrate constructed from hook material (para 0019); allowing for the removal, attachment and rearrangement of the patches on the carrying bag fabric capable of reversibly securing the one or more patches (para 0019); however does not expressly disclose the particular material of the fabric as claimed.
However, Glazer teaches using a brushed fabric as a loop panel recipient for hook fasteners of an attachment device (para 0080) as claimed.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the brushed fabric taught by Glazer as the loop recipient panel on the backpack taught by Anderson, in order to provide a soft touch as taught by Glazer (para 0080).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the brushed fabric taught by Glazer as the loop recipient panel on the backpack taught by Anderson, 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 design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding claim 13, the specification does not detail exactly what is meant by the term ‘heavy brushed’ as now claimed. The degree to which a fabric is brushed seems highly variable as a choice made by fabric designers/manufacturers to vary the feel of a fabric or reduce manufacturing costs, etc.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use heavy brushed fabric as the loop recipient panel on the backpack taught by Anderson as modified above, 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 design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Insomuch as the limitations of claims 20-22 can be understood based on their lack of explanation in the disclosure as originally filed, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a blend of polyester and polyether-polyurea copolymer fabric as the loop recipient panel on the backpack taught by Anderson as modified above, 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 design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Claim(s) 1, 14-19, and 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (US 2013/0032502, hereinafter ‘Anderson’) in view of Petiot et al (US 2011/0112453, hereinafter ‘Petiot’).
Anderson discloses a system for customizing a carrying bag, comprising a backpack (10), wherein at least one section of the backpack is constructed from a fabric capable of reversibly securing one or more patches (16); where each patch of the one or more patches (18) includes a substrate constructed from hook material (para 0019); allowing for the removal, attachment and rearrangement of the patches on the carrying bag fabric capable of reversibly securing the one or more patches (para 0019); however does not expressly disclose the particular material of the fabric as claimed.
However, Petiot teaches using a brushed velvet as a loop panel recipient for hook fasteners of an attachment device (para 008) as claimed.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the brushed velvet fabric taught by Petiot as the loop recipient panel on the backpack taught by Anderson, in order to provide a soft touch as taught by Glazer (para 0080).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the brushed velvet fabric taught by Petiot as the loop recipient panel on the backpack taught by Anderson, 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 design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding claims 16-19, the specification does not detail exactly what is meant by the terms ‘furniture grade’ or ‘heavy brushed’ as now claimed. The degree to which a fabric is brushed seems highly variable as a choice made by fabric designers/manufacturers to vary the feel of a fabric or reduce manufacturing costs, etc.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use heavy brushed or furniture grade fabric as the loop recipient panel on the backpack taught by Anderson as modified above, 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 design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Insomuch as the limitations of claims 23-25 can be understood based on their lack of explanation in the disclosure as originally filed, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a blend of polyester and polyether-polyurea copolymer fabric as the loop recipient panel on the backpack taught by Anderson as modified above, 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 design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER N. HELVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1423. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-7pm 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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at 571-272-4544. 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.
/PETER N HELVEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
November 2, 2025