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 .
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.
Johnson teaches the ability to have a carrier including flap portions that are removably linked together in the form of an elastic link (120).
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 15 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Johnson teach elastic buckles 120 that are reversibly attached to buttons 122 to allow for an adjustment of the pocket to apply pressure to the outer shape of a bottle, and that Johnson indicates that it is preferable to detach the elastic buckles from before retrieving the bottle, and thus that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been prompted to modify the device of Willows to retrieve the bottle only by pulling apart elastic buckles. Examiner notes that Willows demonstrates a detachable link connecting pockets together whereby the connector connects the second pocket generally surrounding a drinking vessel. Examiner notes Johnson demonstrates a releasable connector employed in a similar situation in the form of an elastic link (120) detachably secured to a button (122). Examiner notes that one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the ability to replace the removable connector in the form of a buckle, with a removable connector in the form of an elastic link and a button because such a change would have required the mere choice of one removable connector over another and would have yielded predictable results. Essentially, the rejection intends to replace the buckle of Willows with an elastic loop/link and button. Examiner notes that the overall configuration of Johnson is not intended to be bodily incorporated into the device of Willows. Although Johnson teaches the ability to adjust the connection by having a second button corresponding to the elastic link, the link and button structure is remaining essentially a removable connection mechanism. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the ability to replace a detachable buckle with an elastic link connectable to a button.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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