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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9 April 2026 has been entered.
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 1-12 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.
Claim 1 recites “a non-detachable elastic link” applicant has not specifically pointed out the support for these amendments to the claims based on applicant' s originally filed disclosure. For this reason, these limitations are considered new matter. Furthermore, after a search of applicant's disclosure, the examiner finds no express, implicit, or inherent support for these newly added claimed limitations based on applicant's originally filed disclosure. Particularly, 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 2-12 are rejected as depending from claim 1 and therefore incorporating 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.
Claims 1-12 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 “a non-detachable elastic link” it is noted that the specification is silent with respect to the structure of the connection between the elastic link and the sheath and the structure. To this degree it is unclear exactly what structure would be required to meet the limitation of non-detachable, or to what degree the attachment must resist detachment in order to be considered non-detachable. For this reason, the scope of claim 1 is unclear. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that an elastic link that is not shown to be completely removed in normal use, is considered to be non-detachable.
Claims 2-12 are rejected as depending from claim 1 and therefore incorporating 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) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willows et al. (US 7,520,412 B2)(Willows) in view of Johnson (US 9,775,428 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Willows discloses a carrying article comprising a structure designed to cover a part of the body of a user, said structure having a first pocket (34) for carrying a first accessory (50), said first pocket comprising a yoke fixed to the periphery of a zone of the structure while having an opening for access to said first pocket (Figs. 1 and 21), said structure comprising a second pocket for carrying a second accessory, said second pocket (Fig. 2; 39/60) comprising a sheath having an access opening (via zipper, Fig. 2), said sheath being associated with the structure by being disposed above the yoke (to the degree that it is above the yoke to the degree that outward from the page is “above”), said article being characterized in that at least one edge of the sheath is dissociated from the structure between two ends of said edge (noting the edge on which strap 70a is attached), one of said ends being associated with said structure by means of a link (70a/70b/75 or 40/41/42) allowing said sheath to be moved away from said yoke (when the buckle 75 is disconnected).
Willows does not specifically disclose the link is elastic and non-detachable.
Johnson teaches the ability to have a carrier including flap portions that are removably linked together in the form of an elastic link (120). Johnson teaches a non-detachable elastic link to the degree that the elastic link (120) is permanently attached to a wall portion (94a).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Willows and use the teaching of Johnson and replace the buckle and strap with an elastic loop because such a change would have required the mere replacement of one known suitable removable connector for another and would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, modified Willows discloses the other end of the edge being fixedly associated with the structure (at 44).
Regarding claim 3, modified Willows discloses the first pocket being formed between the yoke and the zone of the structure, said yoke having a dissociated edge forming the access opening of said first pocket (Figs. 1 and 21, noting the portion through which the top of 50 extends).
Regarding claim 4, modified Willows does not specifically disclose the access opening of the second pocket being formed along an edge of the sheath which is opposite to the dissociated edge, but rather along part of the dissociated edge. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Willows and move the opening to the edge opposite the dissociated edge because such a change would have required a mere rearrangement of parts. i.e., moving the location of an opening. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 5, modified Willows discloses an inside wall arranged opposite the yoke, forming between them a space opening out through the dissociated edge (as seen in Figs. 1 and 15, surrounding the area of the link).
Regarding claim 6, modified Willows discloses (shown below in Annotated Fig. 14) the access opening of the second pocket extending in a direction (noting the direction defined by SOD) which is perpendicular to the direction of the access opening of the first pocket (defined by edge E, and includes a portion along OD that is perpendicular to direction SOD).
PNG
media_image1.png
406
376
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, modified Willows discloses the access opening of the first pocket extending in the upper part of said first pocket (Fig. 1, as defined by the orientation of bottle 50), the dissociated edge being a lateral edge of the sheath (60, noting the upper portion of sheath 60 would be generally where leader line 43 contacts the zipper portion in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Willows discloses the end portion equipped with the elastic link (replacing 70a/70b/75 and/or 40/41/42) being adjacent to the upper opening of the first pocket (through which bottle 50 extends).
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willows et al. (US 7,520,412 B2)(Willows) in view of Johnson (US 9,775,428 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thall (US 7,293,566 B2).
Regarding claims 9-11, modified Willows demonstrates a strand (92, Figs. 19-21; Col. 12; Ll. 31-36) of elastic cord, said strand being arranged to be maintained in the tightening configuration by cooperation with the first accessory stored in the first pocket (Figs. 19-20), and the cord having two ends associated with the structure (Fig. 19), the strand having no device for maintaining its tension. Modified Willows but does not specifically disclose an access opening of the first pocket being equipped with a duct in which an elastic cord for retracting said opening is arranged, at least one strand arranged outside the duct to enable the opening to be retracted by pulling on said strand in a tightening configuration.
Thall teaches the ability to have a pocket for holding an object including an opening whereby the opening includes a duct (42) in which an elastic cord (40) for retracting said opening is arranged, at least one strand (Figs. 3-4) arranged outside the duct enabling the opening to be retracted by pulling on said strand in a tightening configuration.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to take the modified device of Willows and attach the elastic cord (94) having portions extend within a duct along the edge of the opening in order to allow the edge of the pocket to provide tension on the object held within the pocket, similar to that of Thall, as such a change would help maintain the object within the pocket and ensure that the edge fits against the object snugly.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willows et al. (US 7,520,412 B2)(Willows) in view of Johnson (US 9,775,428 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moridera (JP 2017218697 A).
Regarding claim 12, modified Willows demonstrates the pocket configuration is part of a device worn on a body, but does not specifically disclose the structure forming a vest comprising a back and shoulder straps designed to cover the back and shoulders of the user respectively, the zone equipped with pockets being formed on one of the shoulder straps.
Moridera demonstrates a wearable vest including a back (21) and shoulder straps (5R/5L) designed to cover the back and shoulders of the user respectively, and a zone equipped with pockets (9/11) being formed on one of the shoulder straps.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the pocket configuration of the modified device of Willows and employ it on the shoulder strap zone of the device of Moridera in order to allow the device to easily removably store a bottle in a first pocket and additional object or objects in a secondary pocket thereby increasing the versatility of the Moridera device and support an easily accessed beverage container.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that neither Willows or Johnson disclose a non-detachable elastic link between the second pocket and the structure. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, the originally filed specification fails to specifically point out (or emphasize any criticality) that the elastic link is non-detachable. Further, the nature of the connection of the elastic link to either the second pocket or the structure is described. To this degree, the elastic link being non-detachable is considered new matter, and it is unclear exactly to what degree the link must be non-detachable in order to meet this limitation. For this reason, a device with an elastic link that is not completely removed from the device under normal circumstances is considered to be “non-detachable” The elastic link of Johnson is shown to remain attached to wall portion 94a through all conditions of normal use, and is therefor considered to be non-detachable. Further it is noted that the modification of Willows to include the elastic links of Johnson would allow for some degree of stretch or “wiggle room” and would allow objects to be added or removed or moved within the pocket.
Conclusion
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