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 .
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 and 3-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2007/0009185) in view of Lindgren et al. (US 7,074,174).
PNG
media_image1.png
505
710
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 1: Lee discloses a moving bag apparatus comprising: a top layer 10 of fabric material and a bottom layer 11 of fabric material, wherein the top layer 10 and the bottom layer 11 are attached together 70 around a periphery of each of the top layer 10 and the bottom layer 11, wherein the top layer 10 comprises a zipper 20 for accessing an interior space between the top layer 10 and the bottom layer 11,the zipper 20 extends in a straight line from a first point proximate a first side of the top layer to a second point proximate a second opposing side of the top layer through roughly a center of the top layer between opposing third and fourth sides of the top layer, and wherein the top layer 10 comprises at least one webbing strap 64 extending therefrom (see figure 6 above of Lee).
Lee discloses the claimed invention as discussed above without specifically disclosing the following claimed limitation that is taught by Lindgren et al.:
a moving bag made out of an absorbent fabric (see figure 2 and col.4, ln.50- col.5 ln.8 of Lindgren et al.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the fabric material of Lee with a tear resistant, absorbent and liquid impervious material as taught by Lindgren et al. in order to prevent leakage and wear on the bag (see col.4, ln.50- col.5 ln.8 of Lindgren et al.)
Lee in view of Lindgren et al. further teach:
In re claim 3: a fluid blocking layer in a bottom layer (see col.4, ln.50- col.5 ln.8 of Lindgren et al.).
In re claim 4: the fluid blocking layer is disposed beneath the absorbent fabric material so that the absorbent fabric material of the bottom layer is positioned adjacent to the interior space (see col.4, ln.50- col.5 ln.8 of Lindgren et al.).
In re claim 5: a fluid blocking layer in a top layer (see col.4, ln.50- col.5 ln.8 of Lindgren et al.)
In re claim 6: the fluid blocking layer is disposed above an absorbent fabric material so that the absorbent fabric material of a top layer is positioned adjacent to the interior space (see col.4, ln.50- col.5 ln.8 of Lindgren et al.)
In re claim 7: a bottom layer has a coefficient of friction configured to allow a user to manually drag the moving bag apparatus across a floor (see col.4, ln.50- col.5 ln.8 of Lindgren et al.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Lee in view of Lindgren et al. for the same reason as discussed above in claim 1.
In re claim 8: the zipper 20 runs longitudinally across the top layer 10 (see figure 6 above of Lee).
In re claim 9: a plurality of webbing straps 64 attached to the top layer 10 (see figure 6 above of Lee).
In re claim 10: at least one tie-down anchor point (any one of 64) on the top layer 10 (see figure 6 above of Lee).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2007/0009185) in view of Lindgren et al. (US 7,074,174) and in further view of Carroll et al. (US 2009/0007402). Lee in view of Lindgren et al. teach the invention as discased above with the exception of the following claimed limitation that is taught by Carroll et al.:
PNG
media_image2.png
358
566
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In re claim 2: a moving bag (Fig.5) with an opening (opening created when zipper 2 is opened) between the top layer and the bottom layer at a peripheral location thereof (see figure 5 above of Carroll et al.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the moving bag of Lee in view of Lindgren et al. with a peripheral zipper opening as taught by Carroll et al. in order to help provide easy removal of what’s being stored within the bag (see figure 5 of Carroll et al.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regards to the newly amended claim 1, see figure 6 of Lee above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ERNESTO A GRANO whose telephone number is (571)270-3927. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:30 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, 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.
/ERNESTO A GRANO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735