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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the bottom panel member is structured to be positioned such that a top side of the first portion faces a top side of the second portion when the bottom member is in the retracted position (claim 5) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). It is noted that Figure 5 of Drawings submitted 25 February 2026, does not clearly show this feature. No new matter should be entered. Applicant’s reliance on Fig. 4 to show the feature of claim 5 is misplaced. Fig. 4 clearly depicts the top side of the first portion (45) facing away from the top side of the second portion (50). Moreover, page 6, fifth paragraph of applicant’s specification explicitly states Figs. 2C and 2D depict bottom side of the first portion faces a bottom side of the second portion when the bottom member is in the retracted position. The top side of the first portion facing a top side of the second portion when the bottom member is in the retracted position is merely disclosed as an alternative method of retracting the bottom member.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-16, and 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 16 recite “the front panel (side)… is formed only from a single layer of flexible material” the back panel(side)… is formed only from the single layer of the flexible material” and “the bottom panel(side)… is formed from the single layer of the flexible material” The originally filed specification lacks support for these portions being only a single layer of material. The specification does not seem to include details about any layers or lack thereof, of the walls, or describe any criticality to having a single layer versus a multilayer panel. Examiner notes that Paragraph 0033 of the PGPub includes “Various embodiments are presented in which bag 10 is constructed using panels, which is used herein to identify a particular side, wall, or area of the bag. For instance, the front and rear panels are used to refer to the front and rear sides (or walls) of the bag. Some embodiments may be implemented where some or all of the various panels that define the bag are coupled together (e.g., stitching), while in other embodiments multiple (or all) panels are formed out of a single piece of material” which appears to be the closest to supporting the amendments noted above. Examiner notes that the recitation from Paragraph 0033 appears to discuss the forming of the separate panels and does not disclose the details of the “single piece material” which would make up some or all of the walls. Specifically, such a material as described could be formed of more than one layer. Applicant's amendment attempts to define over the prior art by using a negative claimed limitation or an exclusionary proviso. As such, these types of claimed amendments must have basis in the original disclosure where the mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion. See MPEP § 2173.05.
Claims 2, 4-10, 12-15, and 19-25 are rejected as depending from claims 1 or 16 and therefore including the new matter.
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.
Claim 1-2, 4-10, 12-16, and 19-25 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.
Claims 1 and 16 recite “the front panel (side)… is formed only from a single layer of flexible material” the back panel(side)… is formed only from the single layer of the flexible material” and “the bottom panel(side)… is formed from the single layer of the flexible material” It is unclear exactly what these limitations are intended to include as they lack support in the originally filed specification, and the scope if unclear. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that that the front side, back side, and bottom side are formed from a single piece of material i.e. the intersections between the front, back and bottom sides are formed by folds rather than stitching or other connection types.
Claims 2, 4-10, 12-15, and 19-25 are rejected as depending from claims 1 or 16 and therefore including the indefinite scope.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-10, 12-16 and 19-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker (US 5,011,008 A) in view of Cullen et al. (US 20140117072 A1)(Cullen).
Regarding claim 1, Baker discloses a flexible bag, comprising, a front panel (either 1 or 3), a back panel (noting the other of 1 or 3), a first side (either 5 or 6) panel coupled to the front panel and the back panel, a second side panel (noting the other of 5 or 6) coupled to the front panel and the back panel, a bottom panel (2) coupled to the front panel, the back panel, the first side panel and the second side panel to define a compartment (Fig. 1), and a bottom member (15) comprising rigid material and being positionable between an extended position (when the board 15 is placed on the bottom) and a removed position, wherein the bottom member is sized to extend over an inside of the bottom panel when in the extended position (Fig. 1), wherein the front panel, between the first side panel and the second side panel, is formed only from a single layer of a flexible material, wherein the back panel, between the first side panel and the second side panel, is formed only from the single layer of the flexible material, wherein the bottom panel, between the first side panel and the second side panel, is formed from the single layer of the flexible material (Col. 2; Ll. 54-56), and wherein the flexible material facilitates the collapsing of the flexible bag when the bottom member is positioned in the removed position (Col. 3; Ll. 30-36), and expanding of the bag when the bottom member is positioned in the extended position (Fig. 1).
Baker does not specifically disclose wherein one end of the bottom member is fixedly coupled to an interior location of the bag that generally corresponds to where the first side panel meets the bottom panel; wherein the bottom member is structured to be folded to define a first portion and a second portion, which are each positionable relative to an inside portion of the first side panel to permit collapsing of the flexible bag.
Cullen demonstrates a collapsible bag including a bottom portion that is fixedly coupled to an interior location of the bag that generally corresponds to where the first side panel meets the bottom panel (generally at 54), and the bottom member is structured to be folded (at 50) to define a first portion and a second portion (noting instances of 52), which are each positionable relative to an inside portion of the first side panel to permit collapsing of the flexible bag.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Baker and use the teaching of Cullen and structure the bottom such that it is attached to a lower portion of the first side panel and further includes a folding portion forming a first and second member because such a change would allow the device to be sized such that the bottom member can be larger than a first side, and correspondingly, the lower surface can be larger than a first side thereby allowing the device to be made in different sizes and shapes while still allowing the rigid bottom member to act as a reinforcing member along the entire surface of a bottom side. This allowance of differently sized and shaped bags would increase its versatility by allowing the device to store a larger range of differently sized and shaped objects. Additionally, attaching the bottom member would ensure that a stiffening board stays with the bag and is always ready to be deployed, and still allow the bags to be collapsed into a flat storage configuration.
Regarding claim 2, modified Baker and specifically Cullen demonstrates a coupling region (50) located between the first portion and the second portion to facilitate folding of the first portion relative to the second portion.
Regarding claim 4, modified Baker discloses a top panel (4) coupled to the front panel, the back panel, the first side panel and the second side panel to define a top side of the compartment (coupled via zipper; Figs. 1 and 2) and an access portion formed in a top panel (noting the zipper) and being configured to open and close to respectively provide and block access to the compartment.
Modified Baker does not specifically disclose first and second handles respectively coupled to the front panel and the back panel.
Cullen further discloses first and second handles (80) respectively coupled to the front panel and the back panel.
It would have been obvious to one a having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Baker and use the teaching of Cullen and add a first and second handles because such a change would allow the user to hold the device in a greater number of ways thereby improving the ease at which the device can be carried.
Regarding claim 6, modified Baker and specifically Cullen demonstrates a bottom side of the first portion faces a bottom side of the second portion when the bottom member is in the retracted position (noting Figs. 4 and 3, noting the continuation of the motion demonstrated by Fig. 4 would bring the bottom sides of 52 together).
Regarding claim 5, to the degree that modified Baker does not specifically disclose the bottom member is structured to be positioned such that a top side of the first portion faces a top side of the second portion when the bottom member is in the retracted position. Such a change have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date because such a change would have required a mere choice of one of a finite number of solutions. And would have yielded predictable results.(i.e. having the bottom member fold such that bottom sides face one another, or such that top sides face one another).
Regarding claims 7-10 and 12-15, modified Baker and specifically Cullen discloses the bottom member (30) is substantially planar when in the extended position (bottom panel 30 can then be unfolded and laid against the closed bottom 26; paragraph [0047]), the bottom member (30) includes a single foldable sheet (92) comprising the rigid material (paragraph [0041]; Fig. 5), the rigid material (90) comprises cardboard (paragraph [0042]), the rigid material (90) of the bottom member (30) has a rigidity that maintains a shape of the flexible bag when in the extended position (Fig. 1), and wherein the rigidity of the rigid material (90) of the bottom member (30) is greater than a rigidity of material (92) that forms each of the bottom panel (26), the front panel (40), the back panel (40), the first side panel (42), and the second side panel (42), an interior height of the first side panel (42) is at least half that of a length of the bottom member (paragraph [0027]), the bottom member (30) is sized to substantially cover the inside of the bottom panel (paragraph [0025]), the one end of the bottom member (30) is fixedly coupled to an inside edge of the bottom panel (26), adjacent to a lower inside edge of the first side panel (paragraph [0028]), the second portion (52) is positionable to extend over an inside portion of the first side panel (42; paragraph [0025]), and the first portion (52) is positionable relative to the second portion to face a side of the second portion (52).
Regarding claim 16, Baker discloses a flexible bag, comprising, a front side (either 1 or 3), a back side (noting the other of 1 or 3), a first side (either 5 or 6) coupled to the front side and the back side, a second side (the other of 5 or 6) coupled to the front side and the back side, a top side (4) coupled to the front side, the back side, the first side and the second side, an access portion formed in the top side and being configured to open and close to respectively provide and block access to an interior of the bag (Fig. 1), a bottom side (2) coupled to the front side, the back side, the first side and the second side to define a portion of the interior of the bag (Fig. 1); and a bottom member (15) comprising rigid material and being positionable between a first position (located in the bag on the bottom side) and a second position (removed), wherein the bottom member is sized to extend over the bottom side when in the first position, wherein the front side, between the first side and the second side, is formed only from a single layer of a flexible material, wherein the back side, between the first side and the second side, is formed only from the single layer of the flexible material, wherein the bottom side, between the first side and the second side, is formed from the single layer of the flexible material (Col. 2; Ll. 54-56), and wherein the flexible material facilitates the collapsing of the flexible bag when the bottom member is in the second position, and expanding of the flexible bag when the bottom member is in the first position.
Baker does not specifically disclose an end of the bottom member is fixedly secured to an interior location of the bag that generally corresponds to where the first side meets the bottom side, wherein the bottom member is structured to be folded to define a first portion and a second portion, wherein the folded bottom member is positionable to be located adjacent to an inside portion of the first side to permit collapsing of the flexible bag.
Cullen demonstrates a collapsible bag including a bottom portion that is fixedly coupled to an interior location of the bag that generally corresponds to where the first side panel meets the bottom panel (generally at 54), and the bottom member is structured to be folded (at 50) to define a first portion and a second portion (noting instances of 52), which are each positionable relative to an inside portion of the first side panel to permit collapsing of the flexible bag.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Baker and use the teaching of Cullen and structure the bottom such that it is attached to a lower portion of the first side panel and further includes a folding portion forming a first and second member because such a change would allow the device to be sized such that the bottom member can be larger than a first side, and correspondingly, the lower surface can be larger than a first side thereby allowing the device to be made in different sizes and shapes while still allowing the rigid bottom member to act as a reinforcing member along the entire surface of a bottom side. This allowance of differently sized and shaped bags would increase its versatility by allowing the device to store a larger range of differently sized and shaped objects. Additionally, attaching the bottom member would ensure that a stiffening board stays with the bag and is always ready to be deployed, and still allow the bags to be collapsed into a flat storage configuration.
Regarding claim 19, modified Baker and specifically Cullen discloses sections (52) of the bottom panel (30) are generally co-planar and lie against the closed bottom (26; paragraph [0025]); the sidewalls (40, 42) may have a height (H), and each section (52) of the bottom panel (30) may have a width (WB) that is selected to be of similar size as the height (H) of the sidewalls (paragraph [0027]). Therefore, the dimensional relationship between the sections (52) of the bottom panel (30) and the closed bottom (26) and sidewalls (40, 42) in the Cullen bag, as discussed above, meets the recitation “an interior height of the first side and the second side is at least half that of a length of the bottom side.”
Regarding claim 20, modified Baker discloses the first side, between the front side and the back side, is formed only from the flexible material (), and wherein the second side, between the front side and the back side, is formed only from the flexible material (Abstract).
Regarding claim 21, modified Baker discloses each of the front side, the back side, the first side, and the second side are defined by a single wall (Fig. 1) of the flexible material (noting a single material formed of a laminate, Col. 2; Ll. 11-17).
Regarding claim 22, modified Baker discloses the first side, between the front side and the back side, is formed only from the flexible material, and wherein the second side, between the front side and the back side, is formed only from the flexible material (noting a single material formed of a laminate, Col. 2; Ll. 11-17).
Regarding claim 23, modified Freese discloses each of the front side, the back side, the first side, and the second side are defined by a single wall (noting a single material formed of a laminate, Col. 2; Ll. 11-17) of the flexible material.
Claim(s) 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker (US 5,011,008 A) in view of Cullen et al. (US 20140117072 A1)(Cullen) as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Aono (JP H1077033 A).
Regarding claims 25-26, modified Baker and specifically Cullen discloses one end of the bottom member (30) at a second portion thereof is stitched to the interior location of the bag that generally corresponds to where the first side panel (42) meets the bottom panel (paragraph [0028]; Fig. 4) and wherein the second portion of the bottom member is proximal to the first side and the first portion of the bottom member is distal to the first side (Fig. 4),
Modified Baker does not specifically disclose wherein a length of the first portion of the bottom member is less than a length of the second portion of the bottom member, such that when the bottom member is positioned in the second (retracted) position, a lower area of the second portion is exposed to the interior location of the bag while a remaining area of the second portion is covered by the first portion.
Aono demonstrates a collapsible container including a folding bottom portion that can be folded up toward a vertical wall as well as extended to form a bottom of the device and demonstrates a folding axis 31 that is located such that portion 32a is larger than the portion distal from portion 11.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Baker and size the bottom member panels such that the panel adjacent the connection is larger than the distal portion similar to that of Aono, thereby exposing a lower portion of the adjacent bottom member to an interior of the container because such a change would require a mere change in size of a component. 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). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 4-10, 12-16, 19-23 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW T THEIS whose telephone number is 571-270-5700. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday - Thursday.
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.
/M.T.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 3734
/NATHAN J NEWHOUSE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights