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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/22/2025 has been entered.
Double Patenting
2. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
3. Claims 1, 2, and 5-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,828,568. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application include essentially the same structural elements as the patented claim with only minor variations in verbiage and level of detail.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claims 1, 2, and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cash (US 4793532) in view of Sampson (US 2023792) and Welke et al. (US 2008/0237245, hereinafter ‘Welke’).
Cash discloses a utility case capable of storing firearms, comprising: a flexible body having a first end opposite a second end (12); a pair of pockets having an open proximal end and a closed distal end, the pair of pockets disposed on the flexible body extending between the first end and the second end (36s); except does not expressly disclose the pockets having first/second panels with a connecting fastener, the aperture reinforcing members, or the distances between pocket and body ends as claimed.
However, Sampson teaches a similar device wherein some of the elongated pockets (18) comprise a first panel removably securable to a second panel via complementary fasteners (19) disposed on each of the first and second panels (see Figs. 1, 3).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to add the zipper taught by Sampson to length of the pockets taught by Cash, in order to allow the pockets to be opened for any desired portion of their length as taught by Sampson (page 2, ll. 2-5).
Sampson further discloses a linear distance between the open proximal end of its pockets and the first end of the body is greater than a linear distance between the closed distal end of the pockets and the second end of the body (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to relocate the Cash as modified above pockets closer to the second end as taught by Sampson, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Further, Welke teaches a bag with a plurality of grommets, the plurality of apertures further comprises a reinforcing member along a perimeter thereof (para 0017, metal disclosed).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to add the metal reinforcement taught by Welke to apertures taught by Cash as modified above, in order to transfer the loads placed on the aperture to the supporting structure as taught by Welke (para 0017).
Cash as modified above further discloses wherein the pair of pockets are disposed parallel to each other (see Fig. 2); and a plurality of apertures disposed along the first end (66, 68); a carrying strap disposed on a first side of the flexible body (30).
6. Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cash (US 4793532) in view of Sampson (US 2023792) and Welke et al. (US 2008/0237245, hereinafter ‘Welke’) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Smith (US 4951816).
Cash as modified above discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the pair of support straps as claimed.
However, Smith teaches providing a carrying device with a pair of support straps (5s) disposed on a second side of the flexible body, wherein each support strap forms a loop (see Figs. 1, 8).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to attach a pair of support strap members taught by Smith to the carrying device taught by Cash, in order to allow the bag to be easily carried by hand via a rearrangeable strap system as taught by Smith (col. 3, ll. 49-55).
7. Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cash (US 4793532) in view of Sampson (US 2023792) and Welke et al. (US 2008/0237245, hereinafter ‘Welke’) as applied to claims 4 and 12 above, and further in view of Bruffey (US 2016/0095417).
Cash as modified above discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the buckle/length adjuster as claimed.
However, Bruffey teaches providing a carrying strap with a buckle thereon, the buckle configured to selectively adjust a length of the carrying strap (para 0029).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to add the adjustment buckles taught by Bruffey to the carrying strap taught by Cash, in order to allow adjustment of the strap length for different size users as taught by Bruffey (para 0029).
8. Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cash (US 4793532) in view of Sampson (US 2023792), Welke et al. (US 2008/0237245, hereinafter ‘Welke’), and Smith (US 4951816) as applied to claim 5 and 13 above, and further in view of Bruffey (US 2016/0095417).
Cash as modified above as modified above discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the buckle/length adjuster as claimed.
However, Bruffey teaches providing a carrying strap with a buckle thereon, the buckle configured to selectively adjust a length of the carrying strap (para 0029).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to add the adjustment buckles taught by Bruffey to the carrying strap taught by Cash as modified above, in order to allow adjustment of the strap length for different size users as taught by Bruffey (para 0029).
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claim(s) 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
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER N. HELVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1423. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-7pm 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, 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.
/PETER N HELVEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
December 3, 2025