DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/19/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 17, the original disclosure fails to describe “when the sheet of material of the expandable compartment moves inwardly towards an interior of the backpack . . . the first interior volume of the expandable compartment increases”. Instead, the disclosure describes the volume increasing when the sheet of material moves outwardly (see applicant’s Fig. 3B, for example). For purposes of the art rejection, it will be assumed that the sheet of material moves outwardly to increase the volume as disclosed.
Claims 2, 5-9 and 11-15 depend from the above claim(s) and are rejected for the above reason as they do not cure the deficiency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-2, 5-15 and 17 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.
Regarding claim 1, it should read “the main compartment” on page 3, line 7 because this element was previously introduced.
Regarding claim 10, it should read “the main compartment” on page 5, fourth line from the bottom because this element was previously introduced.
Regarding claim 17, it should read “the main compartment” on page 8, line 5 because this element was previously introduced.
Claims 2, 5-9 and 11-15 depend from the above claim(s) and are rejected for the above reason as they do not cure the deficiency.
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) 1-2 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Published Application 2006/0207900 to Lytle in view of US Patent 10,368,619 to Richards.
Regarding claim 1, Lytle discloses a backpack for an equestrian helmet (Lytle is capable of this intended use) comprising: an expandable compartment (127/122/128 – Fig. 1b), consisting of a first interior volume (volume in Fig. 1b), a first front surface (128 and most of 122), a first back surface (127), a first bottom surface (bottom margin of 122 adjacent 127), a first top surface (top margin of 122 adjacent 127), a first side surface (side margin of 122 adjacent 127), and a second side surface (other side margin of 122 adjacent 127), wherein the first front surface is coupled to each of the first side surface and the second side surface, each of the first side surface and second side surface is coupled to the first back surface, and wherein the first front surface, each of the first side surface and the second side surface, and the first back surface are all coupled to the first bottom surface (Fig. 1b), and wherein the first front surface, the first back surface, the first side surface, the second side surface, and the first bottom surface all define a first interior volume (Fig. 1c), and wherein the first front surface comprises a first position (Fig. 1a), and a second position (Fig. 1b); a main compartment (110), comprising a second interior volume (volume of 110), a second front surface (rigid 127 – para. 0024 (with 127 coupled to 110 (Fig. 1a), it can be considered the second front surface)), and a second back surface, a third side surface, and a fourth side surface, wherein the second front surface is coupled to each of the third side surface and the fourth side surface, each of the third side surface and the fourth side surface is coupled to the second back surface, and wherein the second front surface, the third side surface, the fourth side surface and the second back surface are all coupled to both a second top surface and a second bottom surface (Fig. 1a), and wherein the second front surface, the second back surface, the third side surface, the fourth side surface, the second top surface, and the second bottom surface all define the second interior volume (the surfaces define the volume of 110); and wherein the first front surface of the expandable compartment comprises a sheet of material, comprising a height and a width (Figs. 1a-b), wherein the width of the sheet of material is greater than the width of the expandable compartment (Figs. 1a-b, with a ball in the carrier), such that when the sheet of material of the expandable compartment moves outwardly from a first position to a second position, the first interior volume of the expandable compartment increases (Figs. 1a-b) and the second interior volume of the main compartment remains the same (with 127 rigid, the expansion/contraction of 128 would not affect the volume of 110); wherein when the expandable compartment receives the equestrian helmet a depth of the expandable compartment increases, but a width and a height of the main compartment remains static (with 127 rigid, the expansion of 128 would not affect the width and height of the main compartment). To the extent the height and width of the sheet are not clear because there is a break in the material, in another embodiment, Lytle discloses using material completely covering the carried item to form the expandable compartment (Fig. 2a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used material to completely cover the carried item because it would more securely hold the carried item and because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent elastic compartment wall element for another to obtain predictable results. In the combination, the height of the elastic sheet of material is greater than the height of the expandable compartment (Figs. 1a-b, modified by Figs. 2a-b) and a perimeter of the first front surface is coupled to a perimeter of the first back surface (via the top, bottom and side surfaces). To the extent it is in doubt that Lytle’s netting is a sheet of material, Richards discloses a backpack that includes an elastic sheet of material (Col. 4, lines 28-35; Figs. 6-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used an elastic sheet of material in Lytle because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent elastic holding element for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein the sheet of material is elastic (Lytle/Richards).
Regarding claim 5, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein the first back surface of the expandable compartment, and the second front surface of the main compartment are one surface (127 – Lytle).
Regarding claim 6, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein the one surface is rigid (Lytle para. 0024).
Regarding claim 7, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein the third side surface, the fourth side surface, the second top surface, and the second bottom surface of the main compartment are all rigid (Lytle para. 0017).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lytle and Richards, further in view of US Published Application 2014/0146525 to Lueptow.
Regarding claim 8, the combination from claim 1 fails to disclose a third compartment. However, Lueptow discloses a backpack with an expandable compartment (3) that includes two compartments (compartments closed by zippers 4 and 6) that form the main part of the backpack. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included a third compartment between the user’s back and the second compartment in the combination because it would allow the user to separate more items as desired. In the combination, the third compartment is designed to hold a laptop (the compartment would be capable of holding a laptop of a size that would fit in the compartment, and therefore would be designed to hold the laptop).
Regarding claim 9, the combination from claim 8 discloses wherein the third compartment comprises a third front surface and a third back surface (Lueptow – front and back surface of compartment), and wherein the third front surface of the third compartment and the second back surface of the secondary compartment are the same surface (Lueptow Fig. 1 – the compartments are adjacent and would share a common surface; alternatively, the surface forming the third front surface can be considered the second back surface, regardless of there being additional surfaces between the second back surface and the second front surface), and the third back surface of the third compartment is designed to rest on a user's back (Lueptow Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 10-11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lytle in view of Richards, Lueptow and US Patent 7,886,949 to Fenton.
Regarding claim 10, Lytle in view of Richards as applied to claim 1 discloses an equestrian backpack (the backpack is capable of use in an equestrian environment) comprising: an expandable compartment (127/122/128 – Lytle Fig. 1b), consisting of an first interior volume (volume in Lytle Fig. 1b), a first front surface (Lytle – 128 and most of 122), a first back surface (Lytle – 127), a first bottom surface (Lytle – bottom margin of 122 adjacent 127), a first top surface (Lytle – top margin of 122 adjacent 127), a first side surface (Lytle – side margin of 122 adjacent 127), and a second side surface (Lytle – other side margin of 122 adjacent 127), wherein the first front surface is coupled to each of the first side surface, and the second side surface, each of the first side surface, and the second side surface is coupled to the first back surface, a perimeter of the first front surface is coupled to a perimeter of the first back surface (Lytle Fig. 1b), and wherein the first front surface, the first side surface, the second side surface, and the first back surface are all coupled to both the first top surface and the first bottom surface (Lytle Fig. 1b), and wherein the first front surface, the first back surface, the first side surface, the second side surface, the top surface, and the bottom surface all define a first interior volume (Lytle Fig. 1c), and wherein the first front surface comprises a first position (Lytle Fig. 1a), and a second position (Lytle Fig. 1b); a main compartment (Lytle – 110), comprising a second interior volume (volume of 110 – Lytle), a second front surface (Lytle – rigid 127 (para. 0024)), and a second back surface, a third side surface, and a fourth side surface (Lytle – surfaces of main compartment 110), wherein the front surface is coupled to each of the third side surface, and the fourth side surface, each of the third side surface and the fourth side surface is coupled to the second back surface, and wherein the second front surface, the third side surface, the fourth side surface and the second back surface are all coupled to both a second top surface and a second bottom surface (Lytle – Fig. 1a), and wherein the second front surface, the second back surface, the third side surface, the fourth side surface, the second top surface, and the second bottom surface all define the second interior volume (Lytle – the surfaces define the volume of 110); and wherein the first back surface of the expandable compartment and the second front surface of the main compartment are one surface (127 – Lytle), and the one surface is rigid (Lytle para. 0017, 0024) and the first front surface of the expandable compartment comprises a sheet of material (Lytle Fig. 2a/Richards), comprising a height and a width, wherein the height of the sheet of material is greater than the height of the expandable compartment, and the width of the sheet of material is greater than the width of the expandable compartment (with a ball in the compartment), such that when the sheet of material of the expandable compartment moves outwardly from a first position to a second position, the first interior volume of the expandable compartment increases (Lytle Figs. 1a-b, 2a-b) and the second interior volume of the main compartment remains the same (Lytle – with 127 rigid, the expansion/contraction of 128 would not affect the volume of 110); wherein when the expandable compartment receives the equestrian helmet a depth of the expandable compartment increases, but a width and a height of the main compartment remains static (Lytle – with 127 rigid, the expansion of 128 would not affect the width and height of the main compartment). The combination fails to disclose a third compartment. However, Lueptow discloses a backpack with an expandable compartment (3) that includes two compartments (compartments closed by zippers 4 and 6) that form the main part of the backpack. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included a third compartment between the user’s back and the second compartment in the combination because it would allow the user to separate more items as desired. In the combination, the third compartment is designed to hold a laptop (the compartment would be capable of holding a laptop of a size that would fit in the compartment, and therefore would be designed to hold the laptop). The combination fails to disclose the expandable compartment being padded. However, Fenton discloses that it is known to pad an expandable compartment on a backpack (Col. 2, lines 60-62). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included padding in the expandable compartment to cushion and protect the contents of the compartment.
Regarding claim 11, the combination from claim 10 discloses wherein the third compartment comprises a third front surface and a third back surface (Lueptow – front and back surface of compartment), and wherein the third front surface of the third compartment and the second back surface of the main compartment are one surface (Lueptow Fig. 1 – the compartments are adjacent and would share a common surface; alternatively, the surface forming the third front surface can be considered the second back surface, regardless of there being additional surfaces between the second back surface and the second front surface), and the third back surface of the main compartment is configured to rest on a user's back (Lueptow Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, the combination from claim 10 discloses wherein the third side surface, the fourth side surface, the second top surface, and the second bottom surface of the main compartment are all rigid (Lytle para. 0017).
Claim(s) 12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lytle, Richards, Lueptow and Fenton, further in view of US Patent 7,165,705 to Haro.
Regarding claim 12, the combination from claim 10 discloses wherein the one surface is rigid (see claim 10 rejection), but fails to disclose what the rigid surface is made from. However, Haro discloses that it is known to make rigid backpack parts from plastic (Col. 2, lines 29-31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have made the one rigid surface from plastic because the modification only involves choosing from a finite number of predictable rigid materials to use in a backpack.
Regarding claim 15, the combination from claim 10 discloses the claimed surfaces being rigid (see rejection of claim 13). However, the combination fails to disclose the material for the rigid surfaces. However, Haro discloses that it is known to make rigid backpack parts from plastic (Col. 2, lines 29-31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have made the claimed surfaces from rigid plastic because the modification only involves choosing from a finite number of predictable rigid materials to use in a backpack.
Claim(s) 14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lytle, Richards, Lueptow and Fenton, further in view of US Patent 2,006,673 to Crawford.
Regarding claim 14, the combination from claim 10 discloses wherein the third side surface, the fourth side surface, the second top surface, and the second bottom surface of the main compartment are all rigid (Lytle para. 0017), but fails to disclose them being made of metal. However, Crawford discloses a carrier that includes rigid metal (Crawford claim 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have made the rigid surfaces from metal because the modification only involves choosing from a finite number of predictable rigid materials to use in a backpack.
Regarding claim 17, Lytle in view of Richards, Lupetow and Fenton as applied to claim 10 discloses an equestrian backpack (the backpack is capable of use in an equestrian environment) comprising: a padded (Fenton), expandable compartment (127/122/128 – Lytle Fig. 1b), consisting of a first interior volume (Lytle – volume in Fig. 1b), a first front surface (128 and most of 122), a first back surface (127), a first bottom surface (bottom margin of 122 adjacent 127), a first top surface (top margin of 122 adjacent 127), a first side surface (side margin of 122 adjacent 127), and a second side surface (other side margin of 122 adjacent 127), wherein the front surface is coupled to each side surface, each side surface is coupled to the back surface, and wherein the front surface, each side surface, and the back surface are all coupled to both the top surface and the bottom surface (Lytle Fig. 1b), a perimeter of the first front surface is coupled to a perimeter of the first back surface (Lytle Fig. 1b) and wherein the front surface, the back surface, the two side surface, the top surface, and the bottom surface all define an interior volume (Lytle Fig. 1c), and wherein the front surface comprises a first position (Lytle Fig. 1a), and a second position (Lytle Fig. 1b); a main compartment (Lytle – 110), comprising an interior volume (volume of 110 – Lytle), a front surface (Lytle – rigid 127 (para. 0017, 0024)), and a back surface, two side surfaces (Lytle – surfaces of main compartment 110), wherein the front surface is coupled to each side surface, each side surface is coupled to the back surface, and wherein the front surface, each side surface, and the back surface are all coupled to both the top surface and the bottom surface (Lytle Fig. 1a), and wherein the front surface, the back surface, the two side surface, the top surface, and the bottom surface all define an interior volume (Lytle – the surfaces define the volume of 110); a third compartment (Lupetow Fig. 1 – compartment closed by zipper 6) designed to hold a laptop (the compartment would be capable of holding a laptop of a size that would fit in the compartment, and therefore would be designed to hold the laptop), comprising a front surface and a back surface (Lupetow – front and back surfaces of compartment closed by zipper 6), wherein the front surface of the third compartment and the back surface of the main compartment is one surface (Lueptow Fig. 1 – the compartments are adjacent and would share a common surface; alternatively, the surface forming the third front surface can be considered the second back surface, regardless of there being additional surfaces between the second back surface and the second front surface), and the back surface of the third compartment is configured to rest on a user's back (Lupetow Fig. 1); at least one strap (Lytle – 140; Lupetow – 7) coupled to the back surface of the third compartment; and wherein the back surface of the expandable compartment and the front surface of the main compartment is one surface (Lytle – 127), and the one surface is rigid (Lytle para. 0017, 0024), and the front surface of the expandable compartment comprises a sheet of material (Lytle Fig. 1a-2a/Richards), comprising a height and a width, wherein the height of the sheet of material is greater than the height of the expandable compartment, and the width of the sheet of material is greater than the width of the expandable compartment (with a ball in the compartment), such that when the sheet of material of the expandable compartment moves outwardly from the first position to the second position, the interior volume of the expandable compartment increases (Lytle Figs. 1a-b, 2a-b) and the interior volume of the main compartment remains the same (Lytle – with 127 rigid, the expansion/contraction of 128/228 would not affect the volume of 110); wherein when the expandable compartment receives the equestrian helmet a depth of the expandable compartment increases, but a width and a height of the main compartment remains static (Lytle – with 127 rigid, the expansion of 128/228 would not affect the width and height of the main compartment); and wherein when the expandable compartment receives the equestrian helmet, the front surface of the expandable compartment does not extend beyond an exterior surface of the backpack (the expandable compartment is part of the backpack (see preamble – “An equestrian backpack comprising . . .”), therefore the expandable compartment would not extend beyond an exterior surface of the backpack (i.e. the compartment cannot extend beyond something that it is a part of). The combination discloses the one surface (between the expandable compartment and the main compartment) being rigid, but fails to disclose it being made of metal. However, Crawford discloses a carrier that includes rigid metal (Crawford claim 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have made the one surface from metal because the modification only involves choosing from a finite number of predictable rigid materials to use in a backpack.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to applicant’s argument that the prior art fails to disclose a fully enclosed padded compartment (page 11), see the Lytle/Richards/Fenton combination above, which is applied for this element (see rejection of claims 1 and 10).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT T MCNURLEN whose telephone number is (313)446-4898. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at 571-272-4544. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SCOTT T MCNURLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734