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 .
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following claimed features must be shown, without entering any new matter: the pocket of the carrier being removable as elastic in claim 20.
Claims 4, and 20 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.
It is unclear whether “a plurality of pockets” comprises “at least one expandable pocket being located between the bottom and the upper-most part inside the carrier”. If yes this is double inclusion.
“the at least one pocket of the carrier” has no antecedent basis. Note there are numerous types of pockets recited in the dependent claim, it is unclear which “the at least pocket of the carrier” is being referred to.
SET I: Thomas (4513866) as the primary reference.
Claims 1, 4, 6-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas in view of Frankenstein (20080000914) or Bergh (9615642).
PNG
media_image1.png
738
826
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
455
348
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thomas teaches a carrier with one continuous wall bounded by a floor a bottom of the carrier and an attachment rim consisting of a length that is disposed about an upper-most part of the at least one wall, a substantially flat carrier flap (note that 12 is flat as claimed on top surface) coupled to the carrier and comprising an attachment rim (the zipper) at its outer most part; carrier pockets (114/122/143) disposed on the carrier flap, wherein the carrier pocket faces the floor of the carrier when the attachment rim of the carrier is coupled to the attachment rim of the carrier flap. With respect to expandable pocket is extends outwardly from the wall and located between the bottom and the upper-most part within the continuous wall, note the expandable pockets on the outside 78/74/84) extends outwardly from the wall and located between the bottom and the upper-most part within the continuous wall.
Regarding the new limitation of at least one expandable pocket is extending outwardly from the wall and over the floor, the at least one expandable pocket being located between the bottom and the upper-most part inside the carrier and within the continuous wall, Frankenstein or Bergh, each teaches that it is known in the art to provide an expandable pocket extends outwardly from the wall and over the floor, the at least one expandable pocket being located between the bottom and the upper-most part inside the carrier and within the continuous wall.
PNG
media_image3.png
532
520
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The collapsing mechanism 106 is, for example, an elastic band joined to the top edge 104 of the pocket panel 96.
PNG
media_image4.png
566
384
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As shown in FIG. 1, luggage item 10 comprises an internal volume 26, articulating protective insert 14, and retaining members 18, which comprise elastic in various embodiments, capable of interacting with the articulating insert 14. The dynamic, multi-adjustable articulating insert 14 of the present invention is generally comprised of a plurality of sections 30 that are capable of bending or folding with respect to one another and held together and spaced apart by seams 16. Retaining members 18 are provided to hold or restrain certain portions of the articulating member 14 in a preferred position and provide a user with the option of creating a plurality and/or variety of different compartments 22(a), 22(b), 22(c) which securely retain one or more objects in a preferred position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an expandable pocket as taught by Frankenstein or Bergh to accommodate additional contents and/or to provide added protection.
Regarding claims 4, 7-8, note a plurality of outside 56/54/78/74/84 and inside pockets (e.g. 202/174) disposed within the container and each has a flap.
Regarding claim 6, the carrier pockets of Thomas are configured to close contents stored there within as claimed.
Regarding claim 7, note the at least one outer pocket disposed on a surface opposite the at least one expandable pocket (78/84/70) in fig. 1 which shows sidewall with pockets opposite the pockets in fig. 6
Regarding claim 10, note the plural straps at 26/24/99/ 19 and at least one belt at 28.
Claims 2, 3, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas in view of Frankenstein or Bergh, as set forth above, in view of Sabbah (7971764).
PNG
media_image5.png
825
567
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
938
592
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
819
544
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The lower edge 52 of the ski harness panel 51 is sewn to and hinged along the lower edge of the front backpack panel 33
(30) To secure the skis in place, the auxiliary panel is buckled tightly at its upper ends through hardware 56 to mating hardware 57 on adjustable length straps 57a. The entire packed shell as well as the mounted skis are further secured and tightened by adjustable compression straps 150, 152, having a locking buckle which mates with complementary hardware 152 on web 153 extending from the back panel 11.
Thomas meets all claimed limitations except for the wherein the secondary flap is configured to couple to at least the carrier (claim 2) and the carrier flap (claim 3), and cover the at least one outer pocket. Sabbah teaches that it is known in the art to provide a secondary flap 51 is configured to couple to at least the carrier at 52 and to the container at 57/56/151 in fig. 6 and attachment means (buckles at 57/56/151). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the secondary flap is configured to couple to the carrier and the container via an attachment means to enable one to carry skis in addition to enable one to deliver the contents of Thomas to needed individuals when there is inclement weather like blizzard or snow.
Regarding claim 7-8, note that both Thomas and Sabbah teaches pocket on the outside and the secondary flap coupled to the outside pocket and cover the pocket at 131/30. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide pocket on the outside and the secondary flap coupled to the outside pocket and cover the pocket to secure the content on the outside pocket.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas in view of Frankenstein or Bergh, and further in view of Sapyta (8157068). Thomas meets all claimed limitations except for the carrier pocket being translucent. Sapyta teaches that it is known in the art to provide pocket of translucent:
Both bulk and leaf pockets, provided with walls that are transparent or at least translucent, provide the user with a clear view of the contents thereof and thus are simpler to use than an opaque pocket which would require opening and sorting through the items for proper identification of the desired object.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the carrier pocket of Thomas of translucent material to enable the user to identify the contents.
Claims 9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas in view of Sabbah (7971764).
Regarding claim 11, Thomas teaches a storage container, comprising a carrier containing a continuous wall bounded by a floor and an attachment rim, wherein at least one pocket is disposed within the carrier and attached to the wall below the attachment rim; a carrier flap (lid 12) coupled to the carrier and comprising an attachment rim configured to couple to the attachment rim of the carrier; a carrier pocket (122, 126, 130, 134, 138 and 142.) disposed on the carrier flap; Thomas meets all claimed limitations except for the wherein the secondary flap attach the carrier (claim 11) via an attachment means. Sabbah teaches that it is known in the art to provide a secondary flap 51 is configured to couple to at least the carrier at 52 and to the container at 57/56/151 in fig. 6 and attachment means (buckles at 57/56/151). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the secondary flap is configured to couple to the carrier and the container via an attachment means to enable one to carry skis in addition to enable one to deliver the contents of Thomas to needed individuals when there are inclement weather like blizzard or snow.
Regarding claim 12, the secondary flap is configured to couple to the carrier and the carrier flap.
Regarding claim 9, note the carrier flap is configured to attach to the carrier while the secondary flap is uncoupled to the carrier, i.e., the since the flap on the outside it can attached to the carrier while the zipper on the lid is unzipped.
Regarding claim 13, note Thomas teaches a plurality of pockets disposed within the wall of the carrier.
Claims 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas in view of Sabbah, and further in view of Sapyta (8157068). Thomas meets all claimed limitations except for the carrier pocket being translucent. Sapyta teaches that it is known in the art to provide pocket of translucent, as set forth supra. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the carrier pocket of Thomas of translucent material to enable the user to identify the contents.
Regarding claim 15 note the carrier pocket is configured to close contents stored there within.
Regarding claims 16-17, note that both Thomas and Sabbah teaches pocket on the outside and the secondary flap coupled to the outside pocket and cover the pocket at 131/30. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide pocket on the outside and the secondary flap coupled to the outside pocket and cover the pocket to secure the content on the outside pocket.
Regarding claim 18, note the carrier flap is configured to attach to the carrier while the secondary flap is uncoupled to the carrier, i.e., the since the flap on the outside it can attached to the carrier while the zipper on the lid is unzipped.
Regarding claim 19, note the strap (shoulder strap in either Thomas and Sabbah).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas and Sabbah, as set forth above, and further in view of Ortego (20150291320). The Thomas combination does not teach the at least one pocket of the carrier is elastic, removable, or both. Ortego teaches that it is known in the art to provide a container with a removable elastic pocket on the lid in fig. 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide removable or elastic pocket as taught by Ortego to enable one to replace with different contents.
Set II: Williams (20110176752) as the primary reference.
Claims 1, 4 and 6-7, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (20110176752) in view of Frankenstein or Godshaw (20010037923).
PNG
media_image8.png
559
455
media_image8.png
Greyscale
[0020] The garden bag 10 may include an openable lid 22 attached on one side to the garden bag body. The openable lid 22 may have a generally rectangular shape, and in one embodiment may be generally square. The openable lid 22 may be sized to be approximately equal to the shape of the opening 20. The lid 22 may be reinforced with materials, such as, but not limited to, a polyethylene board. The openable lid 22 may include a zipper to releasably attach the lid 22 to the garden bag body 12. The zipper may be any appropriate size and configuration.
[0021] The garden bag 10 may also include a pocket 24 on an inner surface 18 of the garden bag body 12 that is configured to contain a knee pad system 26. Alternately, or in addition, the garden bag 10 may include a pocket 24 on an inner surface 23 of the openable lid 22. The pocket 24 may include a strap 28 for retaining the knee support system 26 within the pocket 24.
Williams teaches a storage container, comprising: a carrier (12) containing continuous wall bounded by a floor (bottom of container) at a bottom of the carrier and an attachment rim (zipper at 22) consisting of a length that is disposed about an upper-most part of the wall, a carrier flap (lid 22) coupled to the carrier and comprising an attachment rim (zipper at 22) at its outer-most part, and a carrier pocket (24) disposed on the carrier flap, wherein the carrier pocket faces the floor of the carrier when the attachment rim of the carrier is coupled to the attachment rim of the carrier flap. Williams meets all claimed limitations except for the at least one expandable pocket is extends outwardly from the wall and over the floor, the at least one expandable pocket being located between the bottom and the upper-most part inside the carrier and within the continuous wall.
PNG
media_image9.png
576
657
media_image9.png
Greyscale
[0021] The bag of the invention typically includes an internal storage pouch 50 made from an elastic or fabric material within the interior of the case or bag in opposed relation to the retention panel 28.
Frankenstein teaches that it is known in the art to provide one or more pocket with elastic band at 106, and Godshaw teaches expandable pocket 50 on the inside also pocket 28 also expandable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide at least one expandable pocket on the inside of Williams to store additional contents and allow the content to fit snuggly inside the expandable pocket.
Regarding claim 4, note there are plurality of pocket inside of the walls as taught by either Frankenstein or Godshaw.
Regarding claim 6, note the flap pocket configured to close contents as cited above.
Regarding claim 7, note the outside pocket at 34.
Claim 10 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams in view of McCue (20150265020). Williams teaches a handle but does not mention the belt (shoulder strap). McCue teaches a container having at least at least one strap (handle) and at least one belt (fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide at least one strap and at least one belt as taught by to enable to carry the device easily.
Claims 2, 3, 4, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Frankenstein or Godshaw, as set forth above, and further in view of Breines (D915770).
PNG
media_image10.png
707
1167
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Williams meets all claimed limitations except for the wherein the secondary flap is configured to couple to at least the carrier (claim 2) and the carrier flap (claims 3, 12), and cover the at least one outer pocket (claim 8) via an attachment means (claim 11). Breines teaches that it is known in the art to provide a secondary flap is configured to couple to at least the carrier at and to the container at and attachment means (snap/buckle) and the secondary flap cover the front pocket (claim 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the secondary flap is configured to couple to the carrier and the container via an attachment means and cover at least one pocket to provide added security covering the zipper structure on the front and main compartment against theft and/or rain, etc.
Regarding claims 4, note that either Frankenstein or Godshaw, each teaches a plurality of inside pockets, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a plurality of inside pockets to provide additional storage.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Frankenstein or Godshaw, and further in view of Sapyta (8157068). Williams meets all claimed limitations except for the carrier pocket being translucent. Sapyta teaches that it is known in the art to provide pocket of translucent. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the pocket of translucent to enable one to see the inside.
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams in view of McCue (20150265020). Williams teaches a strap being the handle but does not mention the belt (shoulder strap). McCue teaches a container having at least at least one strap (handle) and at least one belt (fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide at least one strap and at least one belt as taught by to enable to carry the device easily
Claims 9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Breines (D915770).
In claim 11, Williams teaches a storage container, comprising: a carrier containing a continuous wall bounded by a floor (bottom) and an attachment rim, wherein at least one pocket is disposed within the carrier and attached to the wall below the attachment rim (24/34); a carrier flap (lid 22) coupled to the carrier and comprising an attachment rim (zipper) configured to couple to the attachment rim of the carrier; a carrier pocket (24) disposed on the carrier flap (lid 22). Williams meets all claimed limitations except for the wherein the secondary flap is configured to couple to at least the carrier (claim 2) and the carrier flap (claims 3, 12), and cover the at least one outer pocket (claim 8) via an attachment means (claim 11). Breines teaches that it is known in the art to provide a secondary flap is configured to couple to at least the carrier at and to the container at and attachment means (snap/buckle) and the secondary flap cover the front pocket (claim 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the secondary flap is configured to couple to the carrier and the container via an attachment means and cover at least one pocket to provide added security covering the zipper structure on the front and main compartment against theft and/or rain, etc.
Regarding claim 12, note secondary flap is configured to couple to the carrier and the carrier flap.
Regarding claim 9, note the carrier flap is configured to attach to the carrier while the secondary flap is uncoupled to the carrier, i.e., the since the flap on the outside it can attached to the carrier while the zipper on the lid is unzipped.
Claims 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Breines (D915770), and further in view of Sapyta (8157068). Williams meets all claimed limitations except for the carrier pocket being translucent. Sapyta teaches that it is known in the art to provide pocket of translucent. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the pocket of translucent to enable one to see the inside.
Regarding claim 15, note the carrier pocket is configured to close contents stored there within as cited above.
Regarding claim 16, note the plural outer pockets 34.
Regarding claim 17, note Breines teaches at least one pocket outside similar to Williams and the carrier flap configured to cover the outside pocket.
Regarding claim 18, note the carrier flap is configured to attach to the carrier while the secondary flap is uncoupled to the carrier, i.e., the since the flap on the outside it can attached to the carrier while the zipper on the lid is unzipped.
Claim 19 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams, Breines and Sapyta rejection, as set forth above, and further in view McCue (20150265020). Williams teaches a handle but does not mention the belt (shoulder strap). McCue teaches a container having at least at least one strap (handle) and at least one belt (fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide at least one strap and at least one belt as taught by to enable to carry the device easily.
Claim 20 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams, Breines and Sapyta and McCue rejection, as set forth above, and further in view of Ortego (20150291320). The Williams combination does not teach the at least one pocket of the carrier is elastic, removable, or both. Ortego teaches that it is known in the art to provide a container with a removable elastic pocket on the lid in fig. 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide removable or elastic pocket as taught by Ortego to enable one to replace with different contents.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Note that the arguments over claims 1 and dependent claims are moot in view of new grounds of rejections.
Regarding Thomas in view of Sabbah rejection, applicant asserts that the disclosures of each of these references teach away from one another (and the claimed invention). Sabbah is designed for holding skis and ski-boots, which are large in size and designed to take up a great deal of space and are heavy. In contrast, Thomas is a pack used for carrying medical equipment for ready access in confined spaces. The POSITA seeking to carry medical equipment for quick access would not be motivated to use a pack meant for carrying heavy snow boots and skis, where the same medical equipment and medical materials can be lost, mixed up, or possibly damaged in transit. The Thomas and Sabbah references therefore teach and suggest designs that diverge away from the claimed storage container and from the designs of one another such that a POSITA would lack any motivation to try and form the particularly claimed structure without the benefit of hindsight.
The examiner submits that: a) both applied references are directed to backpack structures which are designed to carry contents on the back, i.e., they are both directed to the same analogous art, b) Applicant neither invent the structure of the inside container nor the flap, all of the claimed structures are disclosed by Thomas and Sabbah, b) Also, note Thomas teaches the use of the backpack in delivering emergency care in distant and remote location, with the teaching of Sabbah which teaches to use a flap to hold ski equipment, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to deliver emergency care in snowy remote location, c) Sabbah explicitly provide numerous reasons to one or ordinary skill in the art to use the secondary flap to carry ski equipment:
(4) Despite the many developments in backpacks, there remains a need for an efficient carrier of skis, boots and other ski clothing or ski equipment, including helmets, which backpack is lightweight, easy to pack and unpack, and comfortable to use.
d) One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of provide the flap to carry a pair of skis of Sabbah in Thomas, the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that if the actual application of the technique would have been beyond the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, then using the technique would not have been obvious. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, and e) The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. In this case, note the Sabbath teaches the secondary flap coupled to the lid portion of the backpack and attach to the container via the buckles. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to install flap of Sabbath in the backpack of Thomas and the result would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Thomas in view of Sapyta, applicant is noted that Sapyta teaches that in this art, the use of various type of transparent/translucent material in place of opaque material. Note that substitution of material in this art is deemed obvious since substitute one of material for another is modest, routine, every day, incremental improvements of an existing product or process that confer commercial value (otherwise they would not be undertaken) but do not involve sufficient inventiveness to merit patent protection, citing Steven D. Ritchie and H. David Reynard v. Vast Resources.
Regarding Williams in view of Breines rejection, applicant broadly asserts that the Williams in view of Breines rejection is of hindsight. The examiner submits a) both are directed to the storage bag with zippered lids, i.e., they are both directed to the same analogous art, b) Applicant neither invent the structure of the inside container nor the secondary flap, all of the claimed structures are disclosed by the applied art, c) Also, note Breines teaches the secondary flap in addition to a zipper lid. One of ordinary in the art would recognize that this flap would provide added security by having another level of locking structure, providing added storage on the flap, and to provide added protection against the element, d) the combination would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that if the actual application of the technique would have been beyond the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, then using the technique would not have been obvious. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, and the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would know to attach the secondary flap of Breines onto the lid of Williams and to attach to the container via the buckles for the added benefits as cited above.
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 TRI M MAI whose telephone number is (571)272-4541. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm (Mon-Friday).
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 Jenness can be reached on (571) 270-5055. 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.
TRI M. MAI
Examiner
Art Unit 3733
/TRI M MAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733