Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/413,109

FISH STORAGE AND CARRYING BAG

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jan 16, 2024
Examiner
CONLON, MARISA V
Art Unit
3643
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
39%
Grant Probability
At Risk
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 39% of cases
39%
Career Allow Rate
139 granted / 355 resolved
-12.8% vs TC avg
Strong +42% interview lift
Without
With
+41.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
390
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
47.7%
+7.7% vs TC avg
§102
24.3%
-15.7% vs TC avg
§112
23.3%
-16.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 355 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-8 are currently pending. 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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Design Patent D904009 to Miller et al. (“Miller”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,401,101 to Wang (“Wang”) and U.S. Patent No. 2,241,314 to Mohler (“Mohler”). Regarding claim 1, Miller teaches a fish storage and transport bag that is configured to provide wet storage of fish as well as transport thereof wherein the fish storage and transport bag comprises: a body, said body having a first end (top end) and a second end (bottom end), said body being formed to have an interior volume (FIGS. 1-4; title), said body having an opening at said first end (FIG. 1; title); a closure mechanism (FIGS. 1-4, showing buckle at the top of the bag), said closure mechanism being secured to said body proximate said first end said closure mechanism having a first cross strap (FIGS. 1-4, showing upper strap extending horizontally across the bag) and a second cross strap (FIGS. 1-4, showing lower strap extending horizontally across the bag), said closure mechanism having a first keeper (shown at the top right in FIG. 1) and a second keeper (shown at the top left in FIG. 1), said first keeper being operably coupled to said first cross strap at a first end of said first cross strap (FIGS. 1-4; title); and wherein said body is configured to be rolled in a direction from said first end towards said second end wherein said first cross strap is positioned so as to be aligned with said second cross strap prior to coupling of said first keeper and said second keeper (FIGS. 1-4; title), wherein the body is configured to hold a removable liner, said removable liner configured to be releasably secured within said interior volume of said body (FIGS. 1-4), said rolled configuration providing for a waterproof seal and forming a waterproof storage bag in combination with said removable liner (FIGS. 1-4). Miller does not explicitly teach said body further having a mesh portion, said mesh portion being formed in second end of said body to form a bottom of said body, said mesh portion being operable to facilitate introduction and exit of water into the interior volume of said body subsequent submersal of said body into water and the remainder of said body formed of a non-mesh material. Wang teaches a storage and transport bag that is configured to provide wet storage of fish as well as transport thereof (Abstract), wherein the fish storage and transport bag comprises a body having a mesh portion, said mesh portion being formed in the second end of said body to form a bottom of said body, said mesh portion being operable to facilitate introduction and exit of water into the interior volume of said body subsequent submersal of said body into water and the remainder of said body formed of a non-mesh material (FIG. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Miller and Bergers, so that the bag includes a mesh portion, as taught by Wang, in order to make the bag more accommodating for storing and transporting fish. It was well known in the art to use a dry bag for transporting fish1. The combination of Miller and Wang does not explicitly teach an anchor line having a first and second end, said first end of said anchor line being secured proximate to said first end of said body. Mohler teaches a fish storage and transport bag that is configured to provide wet storage of fish as well as transport thereof (pg. 1, Col. 1, lines 4-10), wherein the fish storage and transport bag comprises an anchor line (9), said anchor line having a first end and a second end, said first end of said anchor line being secured proximate to said first end of said body (FIGS. 1-2; pg. 1, Col. 2, lines 6-11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the bag of the Miller and Wang and combination and further include the anchor line, as taught by Mohler, in order to allow the bag to be anchored in place while it is immersed in water (see Bergers at Col. 4, lines 59-63 and Mohler at pg. 1, Col. 2, lines 6-11). The combined teachings of Miller, Wang, and Mohler provide a bag, wherein the anchor line is secured to the end loop member. Regarding claim 2, the combination of Miller, Wang, and Mohler teaches each and every element of claim 1, as discussed above, and Miller further teaches an end loop member, said end loop member being contiguous with a second end of said first cross strap member (FIGS. 1, 2, 4, teaching end loop member that is contiguous with the first strap and attached to the second). Regarding claim 3, the combination of Miller, Wang, and Mohler teaches each and every element of claim 2, as discussed above, and Miller further teaches said second keeper is secured to said end loop member (FIGS. 1, 2, 4). Regarding claim 4, the combination of Miller, Wang, and Mohler teaches each and every element of claim 3, as discussed above, and Mohler teaches wherein said first end of said anchor line is secured to an end loop member (FIGS. 1-2; pg. 1, Col. 2, lines 6-11). In case it is argued that the combination of Miller, Wang, and Mohler does not explicitly teach that the anchor line is secured to the end loop member, then it is well settled, however, that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence. MPEP 2143. Here, it would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the bag of the Miller, Wang, and Mohler combination so that anchor line is attached to the end loop member, in order to secure the anchor line in a convenient position that does not interfere with the transport and handling of the bag. Regarding claim 5, the combination of Miller, Wang, and Mohler teaches each and every element of claim 4, as discussed above, but it does not explicitly teach wherein said body is manufactured from eighteen ounce polyvinyl chloride fabric. It was well settled, however, that a selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular material was significant. MPEP at 2144.07, citing Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Applicant has not shown patentable significance of eighteen ounce polyvinyl chloride fabric (see, e.g., applicant’s specification at ¶ [0021]). It would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the bag of the Miller, Bergers, and Mohler combination so that the body is manufactured from eighteen ounce polyvinyl chloride fabric, in order to provide a waterproof fabric that is durable. Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Wang and Mohler as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,674,188 to Anderson (“Anderson”). Regarding claim 6, the combination of Miller, Wang, and Mohler teaches each and every element of claim 5, as discussed above, but it does not explicitly teach a removable liner, said removable liner configured to be releasably secured within said interior volume of said body. Anderson teaches a fish storage and transport bag that is configured to provide wet storage of fish as well as transport thereof (Abstract), including a removable liner (12), said removable liner configured to be releasably secured within said interior volume of said body (Col. 1, lines 44-63). It would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the bag of the Miller, Wang, and Mohler combination and further include the liner, as taught by Anderson, in order to better regulate the amount of evaporation (see, e.g., Anderson at Col. 1, lines 18-35). Regarding claim 7, the combination of Miller, Wang, Mohler, and Anderson teaches each and every element of claim 6, as discussed above, and Miller teaches a strap member, said strap member extending generally a full length of said body, said strap member operable to assist in transport of the fish storage and transport bag (FIGS. 1-4). Regarding claim 8, the combination of Miller, Wang, Mohler, and Anderson teaches each and every element of claim 7, as discussed above, and Miller teaches wherein said body is rectangular in shape (FIGS. 1-2). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARISA CONLON whose telephone number is (571)272-4387. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00. 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, PETER POON can be reached at (571)272-6891. 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. /MARISA V CONLON/Examiner, Art Unit 3643 1 See 8,371,061 to Bergers, supporting motivation to provide a mesh portion for a fishing bag, as the mesh allows water to circulate through the bag when the bag is immersed in water (Col. 4, lines 59-63) .
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 16, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
May 05, 2025
Response Filed
Jun 21, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Aug 14, 2025
Interview Requested
Aug 21, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Aug 21, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Sep 25, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 03, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599107
MATTRESS FOR LIVESTOCK
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12568896
Stackable Modular Planter
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12565303
UAV Having Lower Cargo Bay Door(s)
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12559231
TANDEM TILTROTOR AIRCRAFT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12557782
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DISTRIBUTING FEED TO PRESELECTED RECIPIENTS THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
39%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (+41.5%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 355 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month