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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/18/26 has been entered.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 10-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins (US 2012/0006454) in view of Thomas (KR 20077008356).
Regarding claim 1, Jenkins (figs. 1-3) discloses a sports equipment apparatus 10, comprising:
a cover material 16 having a size to encompass at least one piece of sports equipment 12 having a bottom side;
an opening disposed in the cover material 16, the opening having a size configured to facilitate packing and unpacking the at least one piece of sports equipment 12 such that the bottom side of the at least one piece of sports equipment 12 engages a portion of the cover material opposite the opening; and
a collar 18 disposed along the edge of the opening, the collar 18 enclosing a cinching cord 20 that may be tightened to reduce the size of the opening and loosened to increase the size of the opening.
Jenkins further discloses the cover material 16 being made of fabric (paragraph 0019) but fails to disclose the fabric being a swede microfiber having polyamide and polyester and with a density of between 100 and 300 grams per square meter and configured to wick moisture away from the bottom side of the at least one piece of sports equipment 12 when packed.
However, Thomas teaches a swede microfiber having polyamide and polyester with a density of between 100 and 300 grams per square meter and configured to wick moisture away (page 3, paragraph 4 and page 15 paragraphs 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have made the fabric of Jenkins, a suede microfiber fabric, as taught by Thomas to provide excellent surface properties and high moisture absorption wickablility.
Regarding claim 10, Jenkins (figs. 1-3) discloses protective bag 10, comprising:
a bag body material 16 having a size to encompass at least one piece of sports equipment 12 having a bottom side;
an adjustable-size orifice disposed in the bag body material, the orifice having an adjustable size configured to facilitate packing and unpacking the at least one piece of sports equipment 12 such that the bottom side of the at least one piece of sports equipment 12 engages a portion of the cover material opposite the orifice; and
a cinching cord 20 disposed along an edge of the adjustable size orifice that may be cinched to reduce the size of the orifice and uncinched to increase the size of the orifice.
Jenkins further discloses the cover material 16 being made of fabric (paragraph 0019) but fails to disclose the fabric being a swede microfiber having polyamide and polyester and with a density of between 100 and 300 grams per square meter and configured to hasten drying of the bottom side of the at least one piece of sports equipment.
However, Thomas teaches a swede microfiber having polyamide and polyester with a density of between 100 and 300 grams per square meter and configured to wick moisture away (page 3, paragraph 4 and page 15 paragraphs 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have made the fabric of Jenkins, a suede microfiber fabric, as taught by Thomas, to provide excellent surface properties and high moisture absorption wickablility.
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Jenkins further discloses the cover or bag body material 16 comprising a size to pack a surf board (fig. 1).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, the modified Jenkins discloses the material comprising suede microfiber fabric but fails to disclose the fabric density 200 grams per square meter.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the fabric density of the material of the modified Jenkins, 200 grams per square meter, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Jerkins further discloses the material 16 comprises a single layer of fabric (fig. 3).
Claims 1, 4-5, 10, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins (US 2012/0006454) in view of Audrey (WO2021024118).
Alternatively, regarding claim 1, Jenkins (figs. 1-3) discloses a sports equipment apparatus 10, comprising:
a cover material 16 having a size to encompass at least one piece of sports equipment 12 having a bottom side;
an opening disposed in the cover material 16, the opening having a size configured to facilitate packing and unpacking the at least one piece of sports equipment 12 such that the bottom side of the at least one piece of sports equipment 12 engages a portion of the cover material opposite the opening; and
a collar 18 disposed along the edge of the opening, the collar 18 enclosing a cinching cord 20 that may be tightened to reduce the size of the opening and loosened to increase the size of the opening.
Jenkins further discloses the cover material 16 being made of fabric (paragraph 0019) but fails to disclose the fabric being a swede microfiber having polyamide and polyester and with a density of between 100 and 300 grams per square meter and configured to wick moisture away from the bottom side of the at least one piece of sports equipment when packed.
However, Audrey teaches a swede microfiber having polyamide and polyester with a density of between 100 and 300 grams per square meter and capable of wicking moisture away (page 39, lines 32-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have made the fabric of Jenkins, a suede microfiber fabric, as taught by Audrey to provide excellent surface properties and high moisture absorption wickablility.
Alternatively, regarding claim 10, Jenkins (figs. 1-3) discloses protective bag 10, comprising:
a bag body material 16 having a size to encompass at least one piece of sports equipment 12 having a bottom side;
an adjustable-size orifice disposed in the bag body material, the orifice having an adjustable size configured to facilitate packing and unpacking the at least one piece of sports equipment 12 such that the bottom side of the at least one piece of sports equipment 12 engages a portion of the cover material opposite the orifice; and
a cinching cord 20 disposed along an edge of the adjustable size orifice that may be cinched to reduce the size of the orifice and uncinched to increase the size of the orifice.
Jenkins further discloses the cover material 16 being made of fabric (paragraph 0019) but fails to disclose the fabric being a swede microfiber having polyamide and polyester and with a density of between 100 and 300 grams per square meter and configured to hasten drying of the bottom side of the at least one piece of sports equipment.
However, Audrey teaches a swede microfiber having polyamide and polyester with a density of between 100 and 300 grams per square meter and capable of wicking moisture away (page 39, lines 32-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have made the fabric of Jenkins, a suede microfiber fabric, as taught by Audrey to provide excellent surface properties and high moisture absorption wickablility.
Regarding claims 4-5 and 13-14, the modified Jenkins discloses the material comprising 20% polyamide and 20% polyester (page 39, lines 32-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have made the polyamide material of the modified Jenkins 15% and the polyester 85%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feury (US 2020/0188763) in view of Thomas (KR 20077008356).
Regarding claim 19, Feury (fig. 3) discloses a snowboard cover, comprising:
a cover material having a size to encompass a snowboard having a bottom side and a top side, the size configured to encompass (or capable of encompassing) one or more appropriately sized boots attached to the top side of the snowboard;
an opening disposed in the cover material, the opening having a size configured to facilitate packing and unpacking the snowboard, such that the entire bottom side of the snowboard engages a portion of the cover material opposite the opening and at least one booth attached to the top side engages a portion of the cover material adjacent to the opening; and
a collar disposed along the edge of the opening, the collar enclosing a cinching cord that may be tightened to reduce the size of the opening and loosened to increase the size of the opening, such that when tightened to reduce the size of the opening, the snowboard and at least one attached boot is enclosed by the cover material:
Feury further discloses the cover material comprises multiple layers, the cover material configured to hasten drying of an encompassed snowboard and to wick moisture away from the snowboard when packed (paragraphs 0002 and 0036).
Feury fails to disclose each layer comprising polyamide and polyester and a density of 200 grams per square meter.
However, Thomas teaches a swede microfiber having polyamide and polyester with a density of between 100 and 300 grams per square meter and configured to wick moisture away (page 3, paragraph 4 and page 15 paragraphs 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have made the fabric of Feury, a suede microfiber fabric, as taught by Thomas to provide excellent surface properties and high moisture absorption wickablility. 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.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins (US 2012/0006454) in view of Thomas (KR 20077008356) as applied to claims 1 and 10, further in view of Feury (US 2020/0188763).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, the modified Jenkins discloses all elements of the claimed invention as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, but fails to disclose the material 16 comprises multiple layers of fabric.
However, Feury teaches a cover made multiples layers of fabric (paragraph 0036, 0067).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the cover of the modified Jenkins, multiple layers, to provide a cover that is relatively strong to protect the sports equipment, yet breathable and moisture wicking as taught by Feury in paragraphs 0067-0068.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins (US 2012/0006454) in view of Thomas (KR 20077008356) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, further in view of Klein (US 2009/0146387).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, the modified Jenkins discloses all elements of the claimed invention except for the cinching cord comprising a 1/16th inch marine-grade shock cord.
However, Klein teaches a ¼ inch cord made of marine grade bungee (paragraph 0034).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the cord of the modified Jenkins, of marine-grade bungee, as taught by Klein, to provide a strong cord that is resilient. Also, 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.
Regarding the size of the cord, change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins (US 2012/0006454) in view of Thomas (KR 20077008356) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, further in view of Boch (US 1,681,922).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Jenkins further teaches an attachment encompassing a pocket suitable to enclose the cinching cord 20 (fig. 3) but the modified Jenkins fails to disclose the attachment being a stitch folded by 5/8 inches.
However, Boch teaches a pocket formed with a line of stitching 14 (fig. 3 and col. 1, lines 19-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have made the attachment of the modified Jenkins, a line of stitching, as taught by Boch, to provide a strong attachment. Also, it has been held that when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 50-51, 148 USPQ 479, 483 (1966)).
Regarding the size of the fold, it has been held a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Response to Arguments
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s request for interview. However, the examiner has responded in writing in order to give the applicant adequate opportunity to review the newly applied references. Should applicant desire an interview after review of the examiner’s position, such a request would be granted.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that a skilled artisan would not have looked to a teaching for pants when attempting to figure out a way to wick moisture away from a piece of sports equipment. Thomas and Audrey are used for the teaching of the material, not for its specific use in pants. The specific use of the fabric in pants does not limit its applicability, as a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the benefit of moisture-wicking materials in other applications.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAINE GIRMA NEWAY whose telephone number is (571)270-5275. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM- 5:00PM.
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.
/BLAINE G NEWAY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/Anthony D Stashick/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735