DETAILED ACTION
This is the First Office Action on the Merits and is directed towards claims 1-6 as originally presented and filed on 12/06/2022.
Applicant is cordially invited to contact the Examiner telephonically via the contact information contained in the Conclusion below to discuss Applicants response to the instant Office action.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Priority is claimed as set forth below, accordingly the earliest effective filing date is December 8, 2021 (20211208).
The present application, effectively filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/429,460, filed on December 1, 2022, AND U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/265,102, filed on December 8, 2021.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 3 contains an extra limitation “the” in the limitation “…wherein the there is an inner layer…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the device". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim the first time it is presented as the preamble of the claim presents “an apparatus” and not “a device” the first time it is recited.
Those claims not cited above are rejected for depending from a rejected based claim.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2455237 A TO DAVIS FRANK L in view of US 20110174824 A1 to Potts; Kenneth Lee et al. (hereinafter Potts) and further in view of MPEP 2144.04.VI. REVERSAL, DUPLICATION, OR REARRANGEMENT OF PARTS and MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions [R-01.2024]
Regarding claim 1 DAVIS teaches in for example the Figure(s) reproduced immediately below:
PNG
media_image1.png
585
422
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
228
284
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
531
486
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
547
472
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and associated descriptive texts An apparatus for carrying items, said apparatus comprising:
a six-paneled fabric (given the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) a Person of Ordinary Skill In The Art (POSITA) would understand that as shown in for example Fig. 1 and 5, Fig. 1 clearly shows 3 panels connected together that could be duplicated to contain 6 panels while Fig. 5 shows what appears to be 5 “panels” as disclosed in for example Col. 1, lines 43+, and Col. 2, lines 47+:
“(14) In Fig. 1 a "blanket unit or section is indicated at 7 in the form of a rectangle of strong canvas duck, nylon or the like, having hemmed, taped or otherwise strengthened edges, as indicated at 8, and reenforced across the body of the same by crossed strips of webbing 9 stitched or otherwise suitably secured over the same.
(15) Grommets I f through the webbing at the edges of the blanket and at the corners provide anchorages for S-hooks 1 I or other forms of fastenings.
(16) Strap loops 12 secured over the strips of webbing, near the edges of the blanket, provide protective covers over the grommets and hooks
(25) The shape of the blanket may vary to suit different loads. By way of example it may be made as in Fig. 5, with flap extensions 19 at the four sides of the same, to fold down over the load and form a tight enclosure. Slide fasteners 20 or laced fastenings 21 may be provided for drawing the side flaps closely together at the corners. The cord lacing may be preferred where the cover is to be secured more or less permanently, and the slide fastener be used possibly at only one side where there may be a requirement for quick inspection facilities or for easy removal of certain packages or portions of the load.
(26) The adjustable take-ups at the ends of the tie-down straps enable the blankets to be quickly attached to load-carrying pallets or the like and to be tightened down if the load settles or starts to shift. The S-hooks may be used to fasten the blanket to anchorages along the sides of cargo transporting aircraft, to cargo bins or to any other available fastenings.”),
In re Shepard, 138 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1963)
In considering disclosure of reference patent, it is pertinent to point out not only specific teachings of patent but also the reasonable inferences which one skilled in the art would logically draw therefrom.
with all six sides, or panels, forming one contiguous piece of material (as shown in Fig. 5 and as would be the case when a POSITA connected 6 blankets from Fig. 1 together as disclosed in Col. 2 lines 47+ “the shape of the blanket may vary to suit different loads.”),
such that when folded the device approximates a rectangular prism (see Fig. 2, and Col. 2, lines 39+:
“(24) Fig. 2 shows how one or more lines of webbing 19 may be run one way or another across the top of the load through the double loops 13. These extra lengths of webbing may have adjustable take-ups at the ends of the same, as indicated at I8> similar to" those disclosed in copending patent application Serial No. 587,340, filed April 9, 1945, now Patent 2,442,266.”),
and when unfolded in the plane lays substantially flat (as shown in Fig. 5 and annotated Fig. 5 above),
comprising a center portion that when arranged vertically comprises a first panel (as shown in Fig. 5 and annotated Fig. 5 above),
a second panel (as shown in Fig. 5 and annotated Fig. 5 above),
a third panel (as shown in Fig. 5 and annotated Fig. 5 above),
and a fourth panel (as shown in Fig. 5 and annotated Fig. 5 above),
the first panel being disposed above, that is, in line with, the second panel (as shown in Fig. 5 and annotated Fig. 5 above),
the second panel being disposed above the third panel (as shown in Fig. 5 and annotated Fig. 5 above),
the third panel being disposed above the fourth panel (as shown in Fig. 5 and annotated Fig. 5 above),
and with an additional fifth and six panel, each being disposed one to the left and one to the right of the third panel (as shown in Fig. 5 and annotated Fig. 5 above),
in a manner substantially perpendicular to the center portion (as shown in Fig. 5 and annotated Fig. 5 above),
and additionally, with one or more adjustable straps and connectors attached and arranged such that there are one or more approximately parallel strap-connectors arranged along the vertical axis on each of the first and fourth panels (as shown in Fig. 5 and disclosed in for example Col. 3, lines 5+:
“(26) The adjustable take-ups at the ends of the tie-down straps enable the blankets to be quickly attached to load-carrying pallets or the like and to be tightened down if the load settles or starts to shift. The S-hooks may be used to fasten the blanket to anchorages along the sides of cargo transporting aircraft, to cargo bins or to any other available fastenings.”),
and further, two or more oppositely disposed horizontal strap-connectors on each of the second and fourth panels (as shown in Fig. 5 and disclosed in for example Col. 3, lines 5+:
“(26) The adjustable take-ups at the ends of the tie-down straps enable the blankets to be quickly attached to load-carrying pallets or the like and to be tightened down if the load settles or starts to shift. The S-hooks may be used to fasten the blanket to anchorages along the sides of cargo transporting aircraft, to cargo bins or to any other available fastenings.”),
and finally,
one or more straps attached and arranged vertically and horizontally on the each of the second, fourth, fifth and sixth panels (as shown in Figs. 2 and 5),
all arranged wherein:
when said device is folded into a closed shape,
and the opposing connectors of the second and fourth panels are engaged, as well as the opposing connectors of the first and forth panels, the device provides a flexible carrying apparatus adjustable in all three orthogonal spatial dimensions, securing both excess material and oppositely disposed panels (as shown in Figs. 2 and 5).
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are NOT imported into the claims. The Examiner must give the claim language the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) the claims allow.
See MPEP 2111.01 Plain Meaning [R-10.2024], which states
II. IT IS IMPROPER TO IMPORT CLAIM LIMITATIONS FROM THE SPECIFICATION
"Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment." Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing recent cases wherein the court expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment); E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("Inter US-20100280751-A1 1pretation of descriptive statements in a patent’s written description is a difficult task, as an inherent tension exists as to whether a statement is a clear lexicographic definition or a description of a preferred embodiment. The problem is to interpret claims ‘in view of the specification’ without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims."); Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1869-70 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Although the specification discussed only a single embodiment, the court held that it was improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where, as a matter of logic or grammar, the language of the method claims did not impose a specific order on the performance of the method steps, and the specification did not directly or implicitly require a particular order). See also subsection IV., below. When an element is claimed using language falling under the scope of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph (often broadly referred to as means- (or step-) plus- function language), the specification must be consulted to determine the structure, material, or acts corresponding to the function recited in the claim, and the claimed element is construed as limited to the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (see MPEP § 2181- MPEP § 2186).
In Zletz, supra, the examiner and the Board had interpreted claims reading "normally solid polypropylene" and "normally solid polypropylene having a crystalline polypropylene content" as being limited to "normally solid linear high homopolymers of propylene which have a crystalline polypropylene content." The court ruled that limitations, not present in the claims, were improperly imported from the specification. See also In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("'[C]laims are not to be read in a vacuum, and limitations therein are to be interpreted in light of the specification in giving them their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.'" (quoting In re Okuzawa, 537 F.2d 545, 548, 190 USPQ 464, 466 (CCPA 1976)). The court looked to the specification to construe "essentially free of alkali metal" as including unavoidable levels of impurities but no more.).”
With regard to the Examiner’s statements of what a Person of Ordinary Skill In The Art (POSITA) is relied upon to understand resort may be had to for example only MPEP 2141.03 Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art [R-01.2024], which states:
I. FACTORS TO CONSIDER IN DETERMINING LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. Factors that may be considered in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art may include: (A) "type of problems encountered in the art;" (B) "prior art solutions to those problems;" (C) "rapidity with which innovations are made;" (D) "sophistication of the technology; and" (E) "educational level of active workers in the field. In a given case, every factor may not be present, and one or more factors may predominate." In re GPAC, 57 F.3d 1573, 1579, 35 USPQ2d 1116, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1995); Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962, 1 USPQ2d 1196, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Environmental Designs, Ltd. V. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696, 218 USPQ 865, 868 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
"A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
DAVIS does not appear to expressly disclose and additionally, side-flaps extending from left and right edges of the second and fourth panels, and
one or more strap handles attached and arranged vertically and horizontally on the each of the second, fourth, fifth and sixth panels.
In analogous art Potts teaches in for example, the figures below:
PNG
media_image5.png
403
508
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
745
542
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
681
509
media_image7.png
Greyscale
And associated descriptive texts side-flaps extending from left and right edges of the second and fourth panels (in Fig. 7 a POSITA would understand side flaps to connote “strips” 102 as disclosed in for example para:
“[0041] FIG. 7 shows that the body 12 may include an exterior fabric padding. In the example shown in FIG. 7 the body 12 has vertical strips 100, 102 of different colored fabric. Viewing the body from the front, one of the vertical strips covers half of the width on the right, front side and extends from the top to the bottom of the body as shown. A second vertical strip covers half of the width on the left, rear side, and also goes from the top to the bottom.
[0042] The purpose for these strips is not only for aesthetics but also so that the two areas of the body covered by the strips can be less protected from an exterior disturbance (such as bumping bag on a car door when getting out of the car) when all of the interior panel assemblies are in the collapsed configuration. In other words, the front and back walls of the body 12 have a `double protection` when the bag is in a single compartment (large) configuration because the panel assemblies add an additional layer of protection, and the strips 100, 102 afford similar protection to the sides of the body.”),
and
one or more strap handles attached and arranged vertically and horizontally on the each of the second, fourth, fifth and sixth panels (in figs. 1 And 2 as disclosed in para:
“[0025] As also shown in FIGS. 1 and 2, opposed handle straps 28 may be attached as by, e.g., sewing to the body 12. The handle straps 28 may be made of 100 polyester and may be, e.g., an inch wide and approximately 32'' in length. They can be used to rest on the shoulder like a shoulder strap, or simply carried in the hand. Shorter handles attached to the front and back of the body may alternatively be used as carrying handles only, not shoulder straps. Further, an additional shoulder strap may be attached to either end of the body 12 and can be an adjustable strap. Further still, if desired a padded attachment 30 may be on the handles 28 that makes carrying the bag more comfortable. The shoulder strap likewise may include a padded attachment.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the flaps and handle straps disclosed in Potts with the blankets and straps taught in DAVIS with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have “provided a handle for grasping” as taught by Potts Para(s):
“[0012] A beverage container can be in one of the sub-enclosures. Also, a top member can be hingedly attached to the body to removably cover the internal space. A handle member may also be attached to the body and configured for grasping by a person. In some embodiments at least one panel is reinforced with an internal filler pad and at least one panel is not reinforced with an internal filler pad.”.
While it is considered that the combination of DAVIS and Potts teach the invention as claimed and explained above, if Applicant is of the opinion that said combination is not “arranged” or “attached” in the manner claimed then resort may be had to the MPEP section 2144.04.VI.REVERSAL, DUPLICATION, OR REARRANGEMENT OF PARTS. And especially :
B. Duplication of Parts
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
C. Rearrangement of Parts
In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Wherein as is here “mere duplication of parts (such as straps/handles/blankets/panels/ etc.) has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced”. As is here, no new or unexpected result would be produced by adding more blankets and rearranging them as such would have been an obvious matter of design choice to completely enclose whatever is being shipped/moved/enclosed.
While it is considered that the Examiner has set forth the invention as claimed and explained above, if Applicant is of the opinion that the “proportions” of the claimed invention and the prior art are not obvious then resort may be had to MPEP section 2144.05. I. OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS wherein it is disclosed:
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
As is here it is considered that “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. “ and “Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. “.
Regarding claim 2 and the limitation the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the material of said apparatus is of water-shedding, water-resistant or water-proof material (see the teachings of Potts para:
“[0023] As perhaps best shown in FIG. 3, the body 12 can be made of inner and outer durable, pliable, preferably waterproof fabric layers 18, 20 between all of which or portions of which may be sandwiched a thermal insulating material 22 such as but not limited to plastic foam, semi-rigid plastic, or both. The fabric layers 18, 20 may be made of nylon, cotton, micro-fiber, non-woven fabric, polyvinyl chloride, suede or even leather. In one example embodiment the layers 18, 20 are made of denier polyester, product number 210 for the outer layer and product number 200 for the inner. Or, 600.times.600 denier polyester may be used. The inner layer 18 furthermore may be treated to create a complete water-proof barrier.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the water-proofness disclosed in Potts with the fabric of the blankets taught in DAVIS with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have protected the cargo from water damage.
Regarding claim 3 and the limitation the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the there is an inner layer of padded material, fixedly attached to the outer fabric layer (see the obviousness to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claims 2 and 1 above incorporated herein by reference and especially Davis para [0023] “between all of which or portions of which may be sandwiched a thermal insulating material 22 such as but not limited to plastic foam, semi-rigid plastic, or both”).
Regarding claim 5 and the limitation the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the various panels contain one or more strap handles fixedly attached in a manner parallel to one or more of each of the four edges of said panels (see the obviousness to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 1 above incorporated herein by reference wherein it is understood that Potts teaches handle straps and the MPEP teaches that the duplication of parts such as handle straps and the rearrangement of said straps would have been an obvious matter of design choice as no new or unexpected result would have been achieved).
Regarding claim 6 and the limitation the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the device may be constructed in a multiplicity of sizes, so as to provide a range of utility for carrying small to very large items (see the obviousness to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claims 2 and 1 above incorporated herein by reference wherein it is understood that any number of blankets could e attached to each other to cover or encapsulate any size cargo. Further “a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device“ as taught by MPEP 2144.04.IV. CHANGES IN SIZE, SHAPE, OR SEQUENCE OF ADDING INGREDIENTS
A. Changes in Size/Proportion
In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.).
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2455237 A TO DAVIS FRANK L in view of US 20110174824 A1 to Potts; Kenneth Lee et al. (hereinafter Potts) and further in view of MPEP 2144.04.VI. REVERSAL, DUPLICATION, OR REARRANGEMENT OF PARTS as applied to the claims above in view of US 3961585 A to Brewer; Harold.
Regarding claim 4 and the limitation the apparatus of claim 1, the combination of Davis et. al. does not appear to expressly disclose wherein the fabric comprising said apparatus is of stretchable material.
In analogous art Brewer teaches in for example, the figures below:
PNG
media_image8.png
795
640
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
508
646
media_image9.png
Greyscale
And associated descriptive texts wherein a fabric comprising said apparatus is of stretchable material (in for example Col. 7, Lines 5+:
“(19) The straps comprising the top section of the present invention are fabricated from a material having a greater stretch factor than the straps comprising the other sections of the net 10. That is, the straps of the top section can stretch to a greater degree than the straps comprising the remaining sections of the net. This arrangement permits the straps comprising the top section to absorb a portion of the energy of the moving load whereas the depending lower straps forming the front, rear and side sections encircle and maintain the load in place. In an actual construction, the top section was fabricated from a low elongation heat set nylon webbing having an 8,700 pound tensile strength and 18% to 20% elongation. The front, rear and side sections were fabricated from a polyester webbing having a 10,000 pound tensile strength and 12% - 14% elongation. However, double thickness of the polyester webbings were used so that the actual elongation was half the rated elongation.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the stretchable material disclosed in Brewer with the material taught in the combination of Davis et. al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have “absorbed energy due to movement of the cargo” as taught by Brewer Col. 2, Lines 14+:
“(11) A further feature of the invention is to fabricate the top section of the net from a material having greater stretchability than other portions of the net so that the top section absorbs any energy due to movement of the cargo while the lower portion of the net encases the cargo or load on the pallet.”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as teaching, inter alia, the state of the art of universal apparatuses for carrying items at the time of the invention. For example:
US 5388702 A to Jones; Samuel H. teaches, inter alia a Pallet jacket in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
PNG
media_image10.png
706
515
media_image10.png
Greyscale
“A pallet jacket which is adapted to fit over and secure cargo to a base, such as an aircraft cargo pallet. The pallet jacket includes a cover having a central section and extending side flaps. The vertical lengths of the side flaps are preferably controllably adjustable. Separate securing straps are used to secure the cover over cargo and to a base. The securing straps are held proximate and in a sliding relation to the cover by strap keepers and lateral tension straps. The lateral tension straps are releasably connectable to form one or more continuous bands around portions of the cargo. In preferred embodiments, the cover 11 includes a windowed receptacle for retention and display of items upon the outside of the cover.
(6) FIG. 4 illustrates a preferred embodiment of a means for controllably adjusting the in use vertical lengths of the side flaps. An engaging fastener 65 is shown affixed upon a lower inside surface of exemplary side flaps 13, 14, 15 and 16. A complementary engageable fastener 66 is affixed above the fastener 65 on the inside surface of the side flaps 13, 14, 15 and 16. FIG. 4 illustrates an exemplary reduction in the in-use vertical length of side flap 13 at 13a. Upon engagement of the fasteners 65 and 66, the distal end of flap 13 will be folded within flap 13 and the in-use vertical length of exemplary side flap 13 will be uniformly reduced thereby. The placement of additional complementary engageable fasteners 66 at spaced points along the height of the side flap 13 enables the side flap 13 to be adjustable to a number of different lengths. Exemplary suitable fasteners 65, 66 include Velcro.RTM.strips as well as rows of snap fasteners, clips, buttons and eyes, latches, and so forth.”.
US 20110005647 A1 to Campfield; Mark Alan teaches, inter alia an ADJUSTABLE, PORTABLE, FLEXIBLE EQUIPMENT WRAP in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
PNG
media_image11.png
755
540
media_image11.png
Greyscale
“An adjustable wrap or cover for protecting various-sized objects, including audio equipment, appliances, electronics, and other similar articles. The wrap generally includes a flexible body member comprising one or more integral layers, wherein at least one of the layers is a padded or impact-resistant material. The wrap includes one or more types of attachment and/or tightening mechanisms disposed at opposing ends of the wrap to releasably secure and tighten the wrap around a given object. Typically, the wrap comprises a length that is of sufficient length to adjust the wrap to tightly fit around objects with various-sized perimeters. Assorted embodiments of the wrap include specifically-located holes that enable access to handles or other components on the wrapped objects, various flaps and components extending from a primary body portion of the wrap to accommodate a range of geometries of objects, and other features and aspects as described in detail herein.
[0051] FIG. 6A illustrates a perspective view of a third embodiment of the present device 10c along with an exemplary object 12c to be wrapped by the device. As shown, the device includes flexible body member 110, and other corresponding components described previously, such as securing flap 122, tightening straps 124, fastening means 116, etc. In the embodiment shown, the device further includes foldable top member 602 comprising four padded panels 604, 606, 608, 610 that wrap around front, top, and back surfaces, respectively, of an object 12c when the device 10c is in use. As will be understood and appreciated, however, embodiments of the foldable top member 602 may include additional or fewer panels as needed based on the particular application.”.
US 3659641 A to Marino; Frank J. teaches, inter alia CARGO CONTAINER in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
PNG
media_image12.png
466
504
media_image12.png
Greyscale
“Cargo containers including a rigid pallet and a flexible covering detachably connected to the pallet for enclosing cargo carried by the pallet; the covering closely conforming to the contours of the cargo.”.
US 20240278061 A1 to Bassoo; Naipaul et al. teaches a LOADABLE BAG in for in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
PNG
media_image13.png
695
572
media_image13.png
Greyscale
A loadable bag including a set of panels, each panel having an outer surface and an inner surface. The outer surface of one panel includes durable material configured to prevent damage to the bag during exercises such as weighted bag exercises, drag sled with internal removable weights. An additional surface of the bag having a padded surface, with backpack strap and a waist strap to use as a rucksack, weight vest, hiking bag and a general daily backpack. A set of handles in a horizontal and a vertical direction to mimic barbells, dumbbells and kettlebells. The second panel including a flap to open and close the bag to add removable weights or fillable materials. A third panel having compartments for a hydration pack, laptops and personal belongings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LAWSON GREENE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-6876. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-THUR 7-5:30PM (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached on (571) 272-7298. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL L GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665 20260124