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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because drawing figures 1-21 have dimensions on them which are not appropriate, drawings should only have reference numbers that are described in the specifications. Furthermore, figures 22-23 shows multiple figures all in one, this is also not appropriate as it is hard to understand what is being disclosed in those drawings. In each of the figures there should only be reference numbers/letters that correlate to the numbers/letters in the specifications which go into detail about that element entails. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim.
A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, applicant's sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Claims are treated as follows:
“1. A sewn double sided panel comprised of two hook and loop systems; one hook and loop on the bottom of the backside; the other hook and loop is on the top of the backside.
2.) The sewn double sided panel of claim 1, wherein the face of the panel is composed of two hammer loops, a holster, a deep pocket, and a hand-held tool pocket.
3.) The sewn double sided panel of claim 1, wherein all pocket seams are to be reinforced with heavy duty reinforcement bands.
4.) The sewn double sided panel of claim 1, wherein a handle is placed at the center of the top of the primary panel.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-4 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the bottom of the backside; the other hook and loop on the top of the backside" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because applicant’s never claims “the bottom”, “the backside” or “the top of the backside”. For purpose of examination the limitation will be interpreted as “a bottom of a backside; the other hook is on a top of the backside”. Claims 2-4, which depend from claim 1, are similarly rejected.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the face of the panel" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because it is unclear what “the face” is since applicant has not claimed “a face” and what “the panel” is since applicant has only claimed “A sewn double sided panel”. For purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “a face of the sewn double sided panel”. Claim 2 also recites “a holster” in line 2 which is unclear if applicant is calming a holster similar to a gun holster or a holster pocket as shown in applicant’s one of the drawings. For purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “a holster pocket”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation " wherein all pocket seams are to be reinforced with heavy duty reinforcement bands " in line 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because it is unclear because applicant does not claim any pockets in claim 1 nor does applicant claim pockets in claim 3. However, claim 2 does recite pockets in claim 2. For purpose of examination the claim 3 will be depended from claim 2 where all the pockets are disclosed.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the center of the top of the primary panel" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because applicant has not claimed “the center” “the top”, or “the primary panel” in claim 1 so it is unclear what those elements are. For purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “a center of a top of a primary panel.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lungo (US20020092785A1) and further in view of Mannie (US6591941B1).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood based on 112 issue identified above, Lungo teaches a sewn double sided panel (fig.1 shows the holder 10 with the front panel 18A plus 14 and back panel 18B that are sewn together; “The tool carrier 10 shown in FIGS. 1-7 is made from a relatively stiff, reinforced canvas fabric. In this instance, the top panel 12, the front and back panels 18a, 18b, and the side panels 20 are formed from pieces of canvas permanently sewn together along respective boundaries as indicated by hem lines 30.”-0083). Lungo does not teach two hook and loop systems; one hook and loop on a bottom of a backside; the other hook and loop is on a top of the backside.
Mannie does teach two hook and loop systems; one hook and loop on a bottom of a backside; the other hook and loop is on a top of the backside (fig.1 shows the hook and loop fasters 36/28 and 30/32 that are on the top of the backside and the bottom of the backside). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the backside of holder disclosed by Lungo by adding the teaching of hook and loop fastening material on top and bottom of backside as disclosed by Mannie in order to have the hook and loop material be pressed together and secured to form a substantially closed sack having an opening where the ends are approximated. “Thus configured, the upper surface 22 of the fabric may be folded upon itself end to end at the fold line and the hook and loop fastening material pressed together and secured to form a substantially closed sack having an opening where the ends are approximated.” (Mannie, Col.3 lines 12-17)
Regarding claim 4, as best understood based on 112 issue identified above, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Lungo as modified in claim 1 further teaches wherein a handle is placed at a center of a top of a primary panel (fig.1 shows the handle 14 that is at the center and top of the primary panel 18A and 12).
Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook (US4773535A) and further in view of Mannie (US6591941B1).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood based on 112 issue identified above, Cook teaches a sewn double sided panel (fig.1 shows the holder 10 with the front panel 12 and back panels 14 that are sewn together) comprised of two hook and loop systems (fig.1 shows the two tabs 32 with hook and loop fasting materials 34). Cook does not teach wherein one hook and loop on a bottom of a backside and the other hook and loop is on a top of the backside.
Mannie does teach wherein one hook and loop on a bottom of a backside and the other hook and loop is on a top of the backside (fig.1 shows the hook and loop fasters 36/28 and 30/32 that are on the top of the backside and the bottom of the backside). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the backside of holder disclosed by Cook by adding the teaching of hook and loop fastening material on top and bottom of backside as disclosed by Mannie in order to have two hook and loop fasteners at the top and bottom so the holder can be rolled up and attach the two surfaces to be repeatedly attached and detached with ease. Also, so that the hook and loop material be pressed together and secured to form a substantially closed sack having an opening where the ends are approximated. “Thus configured, the upper surface 22 of the fabric may be folded upon itself end to end at the fold line and the hook and loop fastening material pressed together and secured to form a substantially closed sack having an opening where the ends are approximated.” (Mannie, Col.3 lines 12-17)
Regarding claim 4, as best understood based on 112 issue identified above, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Cook as modified in claim 1 further teaches wherein a handle is placed at a center of a top of a primary panel (fig.1 shows the handle 18 that is at the center and top of the primary panel 12).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook (US4773535A), Mannie (US6591941B1) and further in view of Hawkey (US20080251401A1).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood based on 112 issue identified above, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Cook as modified in claim 1 further teaches wherein a face of the sewn double sided panel is composed of one hammer loops, a holster pocket, a deep pocket, and a hand-held tool pocket (see annotated fig.1 below of Cook where the front face of the front panel 12 has for the hammer loop, holster pocket, deep pocket and a hand held tool pocket that are all sewn). Cook does not teach two hammer loops.
Hawkey does teach two hammer loops (fig.2 shows the plurality of receptacles 130 that can be used to store hammers 140 as desired). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the front face of the holder disclosed by Cook by adding the teaching of two hammer loop as disclosed by Hawkey in order to holde and receiver more than one kind of hammer compared to that of Cook and adding a second hammer loop is just a duplication of parts. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Annotated fig.1 of Cook
PNG
media_image1.png
834
906
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook (US4773535A), Mannie (US6591941B1), Hawkey (US20080251401A1) and further in view of Rodgers (US20240172825A1).
Regarding claim 3, the references as applied to claim 2 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Cook as modified in claim 2 does not teach wherein all pocket seams are to be reinforced with heavy duty reinforcement bands.
Rodgers does teach wherein all pocket seams are to be reinforced with heavy duty reinforcement bands (fig.2 shows the casing 22 that is stitched at 28 which is reinforced by webbing segment 24 since applicant does not specify how heavy duty the bands are and these segments are used to reinforce the stiches they read on claim). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the stiches of pockets disclosed by Cook by adding the teaching of the webbing segment as disclosed by Rodgers in order to reinforce the stitches to minimize the ripping of stitches under stress.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook (US4773535A), Mannie (US6591941B1),Hawkey (US20080251401A1) and further in view of Doernbach (US1127205A).
Regarding claim 3, the references as applied to claim 2 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Cook as modified in claim 2 does not teach wherein all pocket seams are to be reinforced with heavy duty reinforcement bands.
Doernbach does teach wherein all pocket seams are to be reinforced with heavy duty reinforcement bands (fig.1 shows the flap 9 that is stitched at 10 which is reinforced by webbing pad 5 since applicant does not specify how heavy duty the bands are and these segments are used to reinforce the stiches they read on claim). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the stiches of pockets disclosed by Cook by adding the teaching of the pad as disclosed by Doernbach in order to reinforce the stitches to minimize the ripping of stitches under stress.
Conclusion
See PTO-892 for the prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRINCE PAL whose telephone number is (571)272-7525. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 9:30 AM - 7:30 PM (EST).
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 on (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.
/PRINCE PAL/Examiner, Art Unit 3735