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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: It is requested that applicants update the status of the parent applications in the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
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.
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim1 of U.S. Patent No.
in view of Chien US 4,885,570 of record. Claim 1 claims essentially the ssecurity panel assembly of claim 20
without the particular bag construction of front and bottom exterior panels with an opening receiving the security panel assembly in the interior of the exterior bag. The security panel assembly include first and second flexible layers each having its own ametallic wire or cable arranged and adhered to a layer to form first and second panek\ls with
and the panels with their patterns overlapped orthogonally to form a matrix. This type of security panel assembly is well-known in bags taught by Godshall et al with out the orthogonal relationsip between the panels. However this is taught by Chien see Fgure 8 as used to uncrease security of a purse with a olurality if sheets like a front 12 and bottom 15 (Fig 6) and an opening. Chein further teaches at col 3, lines 59-69 the structure if the layers with their pattern owire fixed to them in patterns vertical and horizontal and forming a matrix to be received in the front sheet providing cut resistance to the purse. It would have been obvious there for at the effective date if the invention to have formed the security panel assembly oGodshall et al with the first and second panel overlapped in an orthogonal relationship as suggested by Chien for improved cut resistance to the bag.
Regarding claims 1,2,4,,7,8,10,12-14,16 and 19 of Godshall. Note the rejection of claim 20 regarding Godshaw et al in view of Chien.
In regard to claims 3,5,6 and 17note the the rectangular and zigzag patterns shown by Chien at 20 and 21, The continuation of wires in the bottom and ends inherently overlaps the seams that would secure the sheet of the purse of chien.
Regarding the flange of claim 11and 18, note claim 12 of Godshaw
et al.
Claim 15 is rejected under obviousness double patenting in the manner of claim 1 ablve and further in view of Avganim US 2012/0125494, of record.
Although neiter Godshaw et al nor Chien suggest the multiple fastener and stra with a wire, Avganim teaches such use for bag security as shown for example in Figure 1, It wiukd have been obvious at the effective tiem of the invention to have further provided the first, sevcon and third fastener on the bag of Godshaw et al as modified by Chien
with the additional security devices to to prevent theft of the bag as taught by Avganim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUE A WEAVER whose telephone number is (571)272-4548. The examiner can normally be reached
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 Jenness, Ph.D., can be reached at571-270-5055 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.
/SUE A WEAVER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights