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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/16/25 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication #2018/0206566 to Ramirez (Ramirez) in view of U.S. Patent #10,856,642 to Spell (Spell) and U.S. Patent Publication #2023/0309672 to Tabor (Tabor), either alone or also in view of U.S. Patent #2,317,820 to Smith (Smith).
With Respect to Claim 1
Ramirez discloses a repositionable pocket device comprising: a body (see, e.g. FIG. 2) comprised of an opening (noting opening of bottom pocket 9), the opening comprised of a first fastener (zippered closure, although no fastener is shown in FIG. 2, Ramirez discloses zippered closures on compartment 9, and it is Examiner’s position that this inherently indicates embodiments can use zippered closures on any such pockets or alternately clearly renders such obvious); and a second fastener (11) configured to temporarily secure the body an article of clothing (capable of this use which is also the intended use); and wherein the opening is positioned within a middle of a front surface of the body (FIG. 2 shows the opening of the lower compartment 9 in the middle of the front surface); and that the first fastener and the second fastener can be any of numerous suitable fasteners or similar fasteners, but does not disclose wherein the second fastener is a spring fastener or wherein the first fastener is a magnetic fastener.
However, Spell discloses forming a similar removably attachable pocket including a compartment with a second fastener (7) that is a spring fastener (it is a spring steel clip).
Tabor discloses that a magnetic fastener is an art known closure fastener for a pocket and an art known substitute for a zippers, hook and loop fasteners and other example fasteners disclosed by Ramirez ([0025, 0028, 0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Spell, to use a spring fastener/clip as taught by Spell as the second fastener, in order to allow for attachment to clothing lacking mating hook and loop/snap or other fasteners, for the art known benefits of such fasteners, as a mere selection of an art appropriate fastener to use, or at most a mere substitution of one art known fastener for another.
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Tabor, to use a magnetic fastener as the first fastener, in order to have the closure operate automatically when the magnets are near each other, to allow for automatic alignment of the closure, and/or as a mere selection of an art appropriate closure mechanism or at most a mere substitution of one art known closure mechanism/fastener for another.
Alternately, Ramirez discloses forming the openings in various different locations on the body including different parts of the front panel (see, e.g. FIGS. 2 and 3), and so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to locate the opening in to the primary/central compartment (e.g. as shown in FIG. 2) in the middle of the front as a mere selection of an art appropriate location or at most a mere rearrangement of parts which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04). Alternately, Smith discloses forming a similar user mounted pouch/pocket having an opening closed by a second fastener/zipper in the middle of a front panel of the pouch/pocket and also that this is an alternative to a side opening (noting that a side opening is also taught by Ramirez), which provides additional motivation for and/or evidence of the obviousness of locating the opening of Ramirez in this location.
With Respect to Claim 2
The repositionable pocket device of claim 1, wherein the body is comprised of a fabric material ([0028]).
With Respect to Claim 3
The repositionable pocket device of claim 1, wherein the body is comprised of a waterproof material ([0028]).
Claims 7 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication #2018/0206566 to Ramirez (Ramirez) in view of U.S. Patent #10,856,642 to Spell (Spell) and U.S. Patent #12,144,335 to Soderquist (Soderquist), either alone or also in view of U.S. Patent #2,317,820 to Smith (Smith) and/or U.S. Patent Publication #2022/0265032 to Datcher (Datcher).
With Respect to Claim 7
Ramirez in view of Spell, either alone or also in view of Smith (see the rejection of claim 1 above for details of the combination of these references) discloses a repositionable pocket device comprising: a body comprised of an opening (opening in lower pocket 9 of Fig. 3 or per obvious rearrangement of parts and/or Smith, see the rejection of claim 1 above for details) and a logo indicia ([0033] decorations constitutes logo indicia to the extent broadly claimed), the opening comprised of a first fastener (zipper) and wherein the opening is positioned on a front surface of the body; and a second fastener (11 which is a spring clip per Spell) positioned on a rear surface of the body and configured to temporarily secure the body an article of clothing; wherein the second fastener is a spring fastener; and wherein the opening is positioned within a middle of the front surface of the body, but does not disclose wherein the first fastener is a tongue and groove fastener.
However, Soderquist discloses that a tongue and groove fastener is an art known closure fastener for a pocket and an art known substitute for a zippers, hook and loop fasteners and other example fasteners disclosed by Ramirez (Col. 3 lines 2-5, lines 13-16, and/or 37-44).
Alternately, to the degree that some decoration might exist which would not be considered logo indicia, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to use logo indicia as the decoration in order to personalize the item and/or provide information such as a trademark/logo/etc, and/or the logo indicia as claimed constitutes nonfunctional descriptive material and so does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2111.05, particularly 2111.05(I)(B)). Alternately, Soderquist discloses the use of logo indicia on a pocket (Col. 2 lines 61-67 and/or Col. 3 lines 29-37) which provides additional motivation for and/or evidence of the obviousness of including such on the pocket of Ramirez/the combination.
Alternately, Datcher discloses forming a similar user worn pocket structure including a logo indicia (30), and so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to add logo indicia to the user worn pocket of Ramirez/the combination in order to indicate the manufacturer/maker (e.g. a trademark logo), to personalize the structure, to improve aesthetic appeal, and/or for any other art known benefits of logo indicia.
With Respect to Claim 11
The repositionable pocket device of claim 7, wherein the body is comprised of a fabric
material ([0028]).
With Respect to Claim 12
The repositionable pocket device of claim 7, wherein the body is comprised of a waterproof material ([0028]).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication #2018/0206566 to Ramirez (Ramirez) in view of U.S. Patent Publication #2023/0309672 to Tabor (Tabor) and U.S. Patent Publication #2014/0124559 to Pomerantz (Pomerantz), either alone or also in view of U.S. Patent #2,317,820 to Smith (Smith) and/or U.S. Patent Publication #2022/0265032 to Datcher (Datcher) and/or U.S. Patent Publication #2006/0124677 to Thomson (Thomson).
With Respect to Claim 13
Ramirez in view of Spell, either alone or also in view of Datcher and/or Thomson (see the rejection of claims 1 and 7 above for details of the combination of these references, noting that claim 13 does not require that the second fastener be a spring and so does not require the teachings of Spell) discloses a method of using a repositionable pocket device, the method comprising: providing a repositionable pocket device (1) comprised of a body having an opening (opening of bottom front 9 in FIG. 3 or per obvious rearrangement of parts and/or Datcher) comprised of a first fastener (e.g. zipper, [0030]), and a second fastener (11); attaching the body to a garment ([0034-0036], claim 2), a body part or a surface via the second fastener; engaging the first fastener to allow a user to insert an item into the opening ([0033,0035]); and engaging the first fastener to close the opening to secure the item within the body ([0033]); and wherein the opening is positioned within a middle of a front surface of the body (Ramirez FIG. 3, obvious location and/or see Smith); and the combination with Datcher discloses the use of indicia on the body (specifically a logo), and that the first fastener and second fastener can be any of numerous art known fasteners, but does not disclose the body comprising a numerical indicia, wherein the first fastener is a magnetic fastener; and wherein the second fastener is a tongue and groove fastener.
However, Tabor discloses that a magnetic fastener is an art known closure fastener for a pocket and an art known substitute for a zippers, hook and loop fasteners and other example fasteners disclosed by Ramirez ([0025, 0028, 0037]).
Pomerantz discloses removably attaching a pouch/pocket assembly (40) to a user worn support member (noting 30) using a tongue and groove fastener and also that this is an art known substitute for snaps or hook and loop fasteners which are example second fasteners used for this purpose by Ramirez.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Tabor, to use a magnetic fastener as the first fastener, in order to have the closure operate automatically when the magnets are near each other, to allow for automatic alignment of the closure, and/or as a mere selection of an art appropriate closure mechanism or at most a mere substitution of one art known closure mechanism/fastener for another.
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Pomerantz, to use a tongue and groove fastener as taught by Pomerantz as the second fastener, for the art known benefits of such fasteners, as a mere selection of an art appropriate fastener to use, or at most a mere substitution of one art known fastener for another.
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to use numerical indicia as the decoration in order to personalize the item and/or the numerical indicia as claimed constitutes nonfunctional descriptive material and so does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2111.05, particularly 2111.05(I)(B)).
Alternately, Thomson discloses forming a user garment attached holder with a numerical indicia (see, e.g. claim 4, [0001, 0024, 0028]) and also/alternately that this is a substitute for logos or various other types of indicia.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Thomson, to add numerical indicia as desired by a user to personalize the item, improve aesthetic appeal, and/or for any other benefits of such indicia. It is noted that as to the combination with Thomson and Datcher, Datcher provides motivation to add indicia of any desired type to a similar pocket and Thomson provides motivation to make that indicia numerical as a type of indicia or as a mere substitute for a logo indicia.
With Respect to Claim 14
The method of using a repositionable pocket device of claim 13, wherein the body is comprised of a fabric material ([0028]).
With Respect to Claim 15
The method of using a repositionable pocket device of claim 13, wherein the body is comprised of a waterproof material ([0028]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/25 have been fully considered but they are largely either not persuasive or are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments that the amendments overcome the claim objections and 112 rejections and some of the previous prior art rejections are persuasive, and so those rejections are no longer present. As such, arguments related to such will not be addressed in detail unless they could also apply to the current rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J WAGGENSPACK whose telephone number is (571)270-7418. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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 on (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.
/ADAM J WAGGENSPACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734