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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species III, Claims 14-20 in the reply filed on 18 February 2026 is acknowledged.
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) 14-15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Lathouwer (WO 0019862 A1) in view of Chen (WO 2016123958 A1), Bevier (US 2013/0188892 A1) and Davis (US 2014/0116829 A1).
Regarding claim 14, De Lathouwer discloses a backpack (Figs. 2-5a) comprising: an outer shell comprising a front panel, a rear panel, a top sidewall, a bottom sidewall, a left sidewall, and a right sidewall (Figs. 2-5a); a pair of adjustable shoulder straps (31) coupled to the outer shell; a first carry handle on the left sidewall (44), wherein the first carry handle comprises a first grip structure (noting the central part of 44) coupled to a coupled to a first rigid board (Page 5 of the translation, 4th paragraph); and a closure (23) extending around a portion of the left sidewall, top sidewall, and right sidewall, wherein the closure is configured to resealably seal a storage compartment.
De Lathouwer does not specifically disclose the front panel, the left sidewall and the right sidewall are coated with a TPU laminate.
Chen demonstrates a backpack including an outer shell coated with TPU to improve water impermeability (Page 2 of the translation, 4th paragraph from the bottom).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of De Lathouwer and coat the outer surfaces of the panels of the shell with TPU similar to that of Chen to help prevent water from passing through the shell into the interior of the device.
To the degree that it can be argued that De Lathouwer does not specifically disclose the handle including first webbing layer, wherein the first webbing layer is coupled to a first fabric layer, and wherein the first fabric layer is coupled to a first rigid polymeric board.
Bevier discloses a bag including a reinforced handle having a first webbing layer (noting the portion of 140 surrounding 130) is coupled to a first fabric layer (noting the outer portion of 120), and wherein the first fabric layer is coupled to a first rigid polymeric board (130).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of De Lathouwer and use the teaching of Bevier and configure the handle attachment similarly because such a change would have required the mere choice of one known reinforced handle attachment structure for another and would have yielded predictable results.
Modified does not specifically show a second carry handle on the right sidewall, wherein the second carry handle comprises a second grip structure coupled to a second webbing layer, wherein the second webbing layer is coupled to a second fabric layer, and wherein the second fabric layer is coupled to a second rigid polymeric board.
Davis teaches a similar bag including a top carry handle, a first side carry handle, and a second side carrying handle attached on a side opposite from the first side carry handle (Figs. 3 and 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of De Lathouwer and include a second handle similar to the first handle but attached to the opposite side because such a change would give the user another place to grab, manipulate, or carry the device.
To the degree that it can be argued that De Lathouwer does not specifically note that the shoulder straps are adjustable, such a change would have required a mere choice to make a portion adjustable. It has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Regarding claim 15, modified De Lathouwer does not specifically disclose the closure is a waterproof zipper.
Chen further teaches the ability to have a waterproof zipper (11).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of De Lathouwer and use the teaching of Chen and include a waterproof zipper because such a change would help further reduce the chances of unwanted water entering the interior of the device.
Regarding claim 18, modified De Lathouwer discloses the front panel and side walls coated by TPU, but does not specifically disclose nylon.
Chen further discloses walls made with a base of nylon (Page 2 of the translation, 4th paragraph from the bottom).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of De Lathouwer and use the teaching of Chen and make the sidewalls with a base of nylon because such a change would have required a mere choice of a known material in the art. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Lathouwer (WO 0019862 A1) in view of Chen (WO 2016123958 A1), Bevier (US 2013/0188892 A1) and Davis (US 2014/0116829 A1) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Frederick (WO 2008115918 A2).
Regarding claim 16, De Lathouwer does not specifically disclose a series of fabric loops coupled to the front panel.
Frederick demonstrates a backpack including a series of fabric loops coupled to a front panel (30) for attaching objects to the backpack.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of De Lathouwer and include a series of fabric loops similar to those of Frederick, coupled to a front panel in order to allow additional objects to be attached thereto thereby increasing capacity of the device.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Lathouwer (WO 0019862 A1) in view of Chen (WO 2016123958 A1), Bevier (US 2013/0188892 A1) and Davis (US 2014/0116829 A1) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Buffinton (EP 2016857 A1).
Regarding claim 17, De Lathouwer discloses a first adjustable shoulder strap of the pair of adjustable shoulder straps having an upper strap portion (Fig. 3, noting the thick part to which leader line 31 points) is coupled to the rear panel and a lower adjustment strap (Fig. 3, noting the thinner strap attached to 32) coupled to a bottom portion of the rear panel, but does not specifically disclose a waist strap is removably attached to a lower attachment loop coupled to the rear panel.
Buffinton teaches a backpack including a waist strap (3) is removably attached to a lower attachment loop (4) coupled to the rear panel.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of De Lathouwer and use the teaching of Buffinton and include an adjustable belt attached to a lower attachment loop coupled to the rear panel because such a change would help to secure the bag to a wearer’s back and/or to help support the weight of a loaded pack.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Lathouwer (WO 0019862 A1) in view of Chen (WO 2016123958 A1), Bevier (US 2013/0188892 A1) and Davis (US 2014/0116829 A1) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Myers et al. (US 2007/0193902 A1) (Myers).
Regarding claim 19, modified De Lathouwer does not specifically disclose the closure comprises a magnetic closure.
Myers discloses a closeable pocket including a closure that comprises magnets (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of De Lathouwer and have the closure comprise magnets either to replace or supplement the closure because such a change would allow the closure to be opened and closed faster as demonstrated by Myers.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Lathouwer (WO 0019862 A1) in view of Chen (WO 2016123958 A1), Bevier (US 2013/0188892 A1) and Davis (US 2014/0116829 A1) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Mansell (US 8,453,896 B1).
Regarding claim 20, modified De Lathouwer does not specifically disclose a front internal sidewall of the storage compartment comprises a zippered mesh pocket that provides a storage compartment that is closable with a zipper that extends along a top portion of the zippered mesh pocket.
Mansell discloses a front internal sidewall of the storage compartment comprises a zippered mesh pocket (29) that provides a storage compartment that is closable with a zipper (30) that extends along a top portion of the zippered mesh pocket.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to take the modified device of De Lathouwer and include an interior zippered mesh pocket similar to that of Mansell in order to further organize the interior of the device and/or to secure smaller items within their own space.
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Lathouwer (WO 0019862 A1) in view of Bevier (US 2013/0188892 A1) and Frederick (WO 2008115918 A2).
Regarding claim 21, De Lathouwer discloses a backpack (Figs. 2-5a) comprising: an outer shell comprising a front panel, a rear panel, a top sidewall, a bottom sidewall, a left sidewall, and a right sidewall (Figs. 2-5a); a pair of adjustable shoulder straps (31) coupled to the outer shell; and a closure (23) extending around a portion of the left sidewall, top sidewall, and right sidewall, wherein the closure is configured to resealably seal an internal pocket, a first carry handle on a right sidewall (44, noting left or right depends on the perspective), wherein the first carry handle comprises a first grip structure (noting the central part of 44) coupled to a coupled to a first rigid board (Page 5 of the translation, 4th paragraph), a second carry handle on the op sidewall (30).
To the degree that it can be argued that De Lathouwer does not specifically disclose the handle including first webbing layer, wherein the first webbing layer is coupled to a first fabric layer, and wherein the first fabric layer is coupled to a first rigid polymeric board.
Bevier discloses a bag including a reinforced handle having a first webbing layer (noting the portion of 140 surrounding 130) is coupled to a first fabric layer (noting the outer portion of 120), and wherein the first fabric layer is coupled to a first rigid polymeric board (130).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of De Lathouwer and use the teaching of Bevier and configure the handle attachment similarly because such a change would have required the mere choice of one known reinforced handle attachment structure for another and would have yielded predictable results.
To the degree that it can be argued that De Lathouwer does not specifically note that the shoulder straps are adjustable, such a change would have required a mere choice to make a portion adjustable. It has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Modified De Lathouwer does not specifically disclose a series of fabric loops coupled to the front panel.
Frederick demonstrates a backpack including a series of fabric loops coupled to a front panel (30) for attaching objects to the backpack.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of De Lathouwer and include a series of fabric loops similar to those of Frederick, coupled to a front panel in order to allow additional objects to be attached thereto thereby increasing capacity of the device.
Regarding claim 22, modified De Lathouwer demonstrates a zipper closure (23).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Lathouwer (WO 0019862 A1) in view of Bevier (US 2013/0188892 A1) and Frederick (WO 2008115918 A2 as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Myers et al. (US 2007/0193902 A1)(Myers).
Regarding claim 23, modified De Lathouwer does not specifically disclose the closure comprises a magnetic closure.
Myers discloses a closeable pocket including a closure that comprises magnets (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of De Lathouwer and have the closure comprise magnets either to replace or supplement the closure because such a change would allow the closure to be opened and closed faster as demonstrated by Myers.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Lathouwer (WO 0019862 A1) in view of Bevier (US 2013/0188892 A1) and Frederick (WO 2008115918 A2 as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Chen (WO 2016123958 A1).
Regarding claim 24, modified De Lathouwer does not specifically disclose the closure comprises a folding closure mechanism.
Chen discloses a backpack including either a zipper or a folding closure mechanism (Page 2 of the translation, 4th and 5th paragraph from the bottom).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of De Lathouwer and include a folding closure mechanism because such a change would have required a mere choice of one closure mechanism over another and would have yielded predictable results.
Claim(s) 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Lathouwer (WO 0019862 A1) in view of Bevier (US 2013/0188892 A1) and Frederick (WO 2008115918 A2 as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Davis (US 2014/0116829 A1).
Regarding claims 25-26, modified De Lathouwer does not specifically disclose a third carry handle on the left sidewall, at least one of the second carry handle, or the third carry handle comprises a second grip structure coupled to a second webbing layer, wherein the second webbing layer is coupled to a second fabric layer, and wherein the second fabric layer is coupled to a second rigid polymeric board.
Davis teaches a similar bag including a top carry handle, a first side carry handle, and a second side carrying handle attached on a side opposite from the first side carry handle (Figs. 3 and 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of De Lathouwer and include a second handle similar to the first handle but attached to the opposite side because such a change would give the user another place to grab, manipulate, or carry the device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW T THEIS whose telephone number is 571-270-5700. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday - Thursday.
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.
/M.T.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3734
/NATHAN J NEWHOUSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3734