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 § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 - 4, 6 - 9, 11 - 13 and 15 - 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sadow et al., US 2006/0180624.
Regarding claim 1, Sadow discloses an equipment bag attachment mechanism comprising: a first attachment mechanism portion (60) attached to a first equipment bag (50) having at least a portion (see figure 5) made of a first material (see figures 2 - 4), the first attachment mechanism portion (60) comprising a first plate (see an annotated figure 4 below) and a second plate (see the annotated figure 4) attached to opposite sides of the first material (see the annotated figure 4); a second attachment mechanism portion (30) attached to a second equipment bag (10) having at least a portion made of a second material (see figure 1; the second material does not have to be different than the first material), the second attachment mechanism portion (30) comprising a loop (defined by said portion 30 forming a passageway 32) which is sized to seat between the first and second plates (see the annotated figure 4) of the first attachment mechanism portion (60) when the first and second attachment mechanism portions (60, 30) are mated with each other (see the annotated figure 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
523
443
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Sadow discloses the equipment bag attachment mechanism of claim 1, wherein: the second attachment mechanism portion (30) comprises a third plate (see the annotated figure 4) and a fourth plate (a flat portion of the loop) attached to opposite sides of the second material (via a thread; see the annotated figure 4), the fourth plate having the loop (see the annotated figure 4).
Regarding claim 3, Sadow discloses the equipment bag attachment mechanism of claim 1, wherein the first plate (see the annotated figure 4) includes a protrusion (66) that seats against the second plate (see the annotated figure 4) to hold the loop (see the annotated figure 4) between the first and second plates (see the annotated figure 4) when the first and second attachment mechanism portions (60, 30) are mated with each other (see the annotated figure 4).
Regarding claim 4, Sadow discloses the equipment bag attachment mechanism of claim 1, wherein the first plate (see the annotated figure 4) includes a first tongue (64) and the second plate (see the annotated figure 4) includes a second tongue (see the annotated figure 4), wherein the loop (see the annotated figure 4) seats between the first and second tongues (see the annotated figure 4) when the first and second attachment mechanism portions (60, 30) are mated with each other (see the annotated figure 4).
Regarding claim 6, Sadow discloses the equipment bag attachment mechanism of claim 2, further comprising a first securer (a connecting portion of the portion 60 that connects the first plate and the second plate as shown in the annotated figure 4) to secure the first and second plates of the first attachment mechanism portion (60) to the first material (see the annotated figure 4).
Regarding claim 7, Sadow discloses the equipment bag attachment mechanism of claim 6, wherein the first securer (see the annotated figure 4) secures the first and second plates (the annotated figure 4) of the first attachment mechanism portion (60) to each other through the first material (see the annotated figure 4).
Regarding claim 8, Sadow discloses the equipment bag attachment mechanism of claim 6, further comprising a second securer (see the annotated figure 4) to secure the third and fourth plates (see the annotated figure 4) of the second attachment mechanism portion (30) to the second material (see the annotated figure 4).
Regarding claim 9, Sadow discloses the equipment bag attachment mechanism of claim 8, wherein the second securer (see the annotated figure 4) secures the third and fourth plates (see the annotated figure 4) of the second attachment mechanism portion (30) to each other through the second material (see the annotated figure 4).
Regarding claim 11, Sadow discloses the equipment bag attachment mechanism of claim 1, wherein the first plate (see the annotated figure 4) of the first attachment mechanism portion (60) includes interior sloped edges (of 64) to guide the loop (see the annotated figure 4) between the first and second plates (see the annotated figure 4) when the first and second attachment mechanism portions (60, 30) are mated with each other (see the annotated figure 4).
Regarding claim 12, Sadow discloses the equipment bag attachment mechanism of claim 1, wherein the first plate (see the annotated figure 4) of the first attachment mechanism portion (60) has openings on three sides (below and lateral sides of 64), the openings being sized to guide the loop (see the annotated figure 4) between the first and second plates (see the annotated figure 4) of the first attachment mechanism portion (60) as the first and second attachment mechanism portions (60, 30) are mated with each other (see the annotated figure 4).
Regarding claim 13, Sadow discloses the equipment bag attachment mechanism of claim 1, wherein one or more of the first and second plates (see the annotated figure 4) comprise material (preferably fabricated from metal, plastic, or composite materials; see paragraph [0044]) selected from the group consisting of metal (paragraph [0044]), brass, plated metal, plastic (paragraph [0044]), fiber reinforced plastic, fiber reinforced polymer, fiberglass reinforced nylon, or plastic coated carbon fiber.
Regarding claim 15, Sadow discloses the equipment bag attachment mechanism of claim 1, wherein the portion of the first material is sufficiently rigid (see the annotated figure 4) to facilitate attachment of the first attachment mechanism portion (60) thereto.
Regarding claim 16, Sadow discloses the equipment bag attachment mechanism of claim 1, wherein the portion of the second material (see the annotated figure 4) is sufficiently rigid (see the annotated figure 4) to facilitate attachment of the second attachment mechanism portion (30) thereto.
Regarding claim 17, Sadow discloses the equipment bag attachment mechanism of claim 1, wherein the first equipment bag (50) comprises the first material, and wherein the first material (of the first bag) is sufficiently rigid (see the annotated figure 4) to facilitate attachment of the first attachment mechanism portion (60) thereto.
Regarding claim 18, Sadow discloses the equipment bag attachment mechanism of claim 1, wherein the second equipment bag (10) comprises the second material (see the annotated figure 4), and wherein the second material is sufficiently rigid (see the annotated figure 4) to facilitate attachment of the second attachment mechanism portion (30) thereto.
Regarding claim 19, Sadow discloses the equipment bag attachment mechanism of claim 1, wherein the first equipment bag (50) comprises the first material (see the annotated figure 4), and wherein the first material is sufficiently rigid to enable the first equipment bag to be free-standing when empty (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 20, Sadow discloses the equipment bag attachment mechanism of claim 1, wherein the second equipment bag (10) comprises the second material (see the annotated figure 4), and wherein the second material is sufficiently rigid to enable the second equipment bag (10) to be free-standing when empty (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 21, Sadow discloses the equipment bag attachment mechanism of claim 1, wherein the first and second equipment bags (50, 10) are shaped (see figures 2, 3 and 6) [to carry equestrian equipment selected from the group consisting of boots, a helmet, and grooming equipment].
Claim language set in brackets [] set forth above and below in this office action are considered by the examiner to be intended use that fails to further limit the structure of the claimed invention. Since the claimed invention is directed solely to that of the attachment mechanism, the prior art must only be capable of performing the functional recitations in order to be applicable, and in the instant case, the examiner maintains that the bags disclosed by Sadow et al. (US 2006/0180624) is indeed capable of the intended use statements. Note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations.
Regarding claim 22, Sadow discloses the equipment bag attachment mechanism of claim 1, wherein one of the first and second equipment bags (50) is an equestrian boot bag (50; see figure 2) and the other of the first and second equipment bags is an equestrian helmet bag (10; see figure 1; the helmet can be placed on the bag 10).
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(s) 10 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadow et al., US 2006/0180624.
Regarding claim 10, Sadow discloses the equipment bag attachment mechanism of claim 8, wherein the second securer (see the annotated figure 4) is a thread. Sadow does not explicitly disclose the securer is selected from the group consisting of adhesive, glue, epoxy, one or more ultrasonic welds, or a plurality of barbs extending from either the second plate or the third plate and attaching to the first or the second material. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider adhesive, glue or epoxy instead of the sewing thread, since it was known in the art that adhesive/glue/epoxy can be substituted with the (sewing) thread to be utilized as a fastener/securer in the mechanical art.
Regarding claim 14, Sadow discloses the equipment bag attachment mechanism of claim 2, wherein one or more of the third and fourth plates (see the annotated figure 4) comprise a nylon canvas, or a cotton blend with polymer, and/or flexible polymeric composition. Sadow does not explicitly disclose the material is selected from the group consisting of metal, brass, plated metal, plastic, fiber reinforced plastic, fiber reinforced polymer, fiberglass reinforced nylon, or plastic coated carbon fiber. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider a (known) material as claimed, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known (commercially available) material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 7, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Firstly, it is noted that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a plate has been considered a flat sheet of material.
Applicant has argued that claim 1 requires the first and second plates attached to opposite sides of the first material in which Sadow (US 2006/0180624) has failed to disclose. The argument is found not persuasive in view of the rejection as set forth above (and previously presented) wherein the annotated figure 4 has shown the ‘first plate’ to comprise both elements 64 and 66 in which the end (66) of said first plate is attached to the first material (on one side) and the ‘second plate’ is shown to be attached to said first material on its opposite side. Applicant has argued that element 64 is not attached to said first material, however, the claim does not require the entire plate to be attached to the first material. With regards to claim 2, applicant has argued that the ‘third plate’ is not met; however, the annotated figure 4 has shown the third plate to be present with respect to a fourth plate and the loop. It is noted that figure 1 of Sadow further illustrate the ‘plate’ features wherein the strap 20 provides the claimed second material so that the fourth plate (of the portion 30) is attached to one side and the third plate is attached to another opposite side.
With regards to the argument concerning claim 4, element 62 in figure 7 has a tongue feature similar to the annotated figure 4 as rejected previously wherein the tongue is included from the second plate. Applicant is reminded that it is the language of the claims that defines the invention and it is the language of the claims for which patentability is to be determined. It is well-settled that for anticipation to exist, the language of the claims need only “read on” something in the prior art. The rejection of record advances how the disclosed structure of Sadow (US 2006/0180624) "reads on" the language of the claim(s).
Regarding the claim 2’s third plate, applicant has relied on the plate not read on by Sadow and therefore the claim 8’s securer is not met. The argument is found not persuasive in view of the response to claim 2’s argument concerning the third plate.
With regards to claim 11, the interior sloped edges are interpreted to be ‘of 64’ as rejected. Applicant’s argument that edges of 64 in Sadow fails to guide the loop between the first and second plates is found not persuasive since the edges of the loop is capable of guiding said first and second plates.
With regards to claim 12, applicant has argued that the openings on three sides of the first plate is not met. The argument is found not persuasive since the claim requires portion 60 to have openings on three sides: the lateral sides and bottom side of the beam 64 has gaps allowing access.
With regards to claims 19 and 20, applicant has argued that the case 10 or pouch 50 is not free standing. The argument is found not persuasive since the claim limitations require each of the bags to main its shape and stands upright without external support when it contains no contents and Sadow has disclosed the case (10) to be a rigid cushioned laptop case with defined walls to have an inherent property of ‘free standing’ and similarly the pouch (50) is illustrated to be rigid to be capable of ‘free standing’ as shown in the figure 1.
With regards to claim 21, applicant has argued the bags are not shaped to carry equestrian equipment; however, the functional limitation is met since it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. For example, the helmet from the list can be carried by the equipment bags (10, 50) of Sadow via the loop (when strapped to said loop).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for similar art cited. For example, Hammond (US 7,600,620) discloses a bag with an internal hook through which a loop coupler on another bag engages to allow the other bag to hang on the outside wall of the bag; and Crandall (WO 2010099505) discloses two bags that are coupled together by an elongated member housed in a sleeve on one bag with a flexible loop at its free end that inserts into a corresponding opening on a second bag to link the bags for carrying.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROWLAND DO whose telephone number is (571)270-5737. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 - 7:00 PT.
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, Jason San can be reached at (571) 272-6531. 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.
/R.D./ Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/ SPE, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights