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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Howell (US 7,793,809).
Regarding claim 1, Howell discloses a monolithic polymeric backpack frame, comprising: an outer frame border (Fig. 1) with rounded corners, having parallel lengthwise members (16) oriented along a first axis joined by parallel widthwise members (12, 14 and/or 18 and lower back crossbar) oriented along a second axis; and a pair of parallel mounting extensions (12b), each one of the pair protruding from a segment of one of the parallel lengthwise members and oriented along a third axis; wherein the third axis is oriented orthogonally to at least one of the first axis and the second axis. See Figs. 1-8.
Regarding claim 2, reinforcement ridges (Fig. 1, any ridge) extend along one or more of the parallel lengthwise members, the parallel widthwise members, and/or the pair of parallel mounting extensions. See Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 3, at least one of the parallel widthwise members is a cross bar, contoured to align with a human back, that extends between the parallel lengthwise members. See Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 4, the parallel widthwise members include a top member and a bottom member; wherein top strap mounting apertures are formed through the top member; and wherein bottom strap mounting apertures are formed through the bottom member. See Figs. 1-8.
Regarding claim 5, the pair of parallel mounting extensions have strap mounting apertures formed therethrough. See Figs. 1-8.
Regarding claim 6, the strap mounting apertures include first apertures having a first shape and second apertures having a second shape. See Figs. 1-8.
Regarding claim 8, the parallel lengthwise members include two outer members (16) with a central member (18a or central portion of 16) therebetween. See Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 9, the central member is contoured to align with a human spine. See Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 10, the two outer members exhibit a bend distal from the mounting extensions. See Figs. 1-5.
Regarding claim 11, each of the pair of parallel mounting extensions comprises a rectangular arm having a proximal end joined to the outer frame border and a distal end extending outwardly therefrom. See Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 12, wherein reinforcement fins (Fig. 1, top of 12b) join each proximal end to one of the parallel lengthwise members. See Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 13, the first apertures are configured for attachment of shoulder strap webbing and bottom backpack webbing, and the second apertures are configured for attachment of a kidney pad. See Figs. 1-8.
Regarding claim 14, each of the pair of parallel mounting extensions includes at least one of the first apertures positioned centrally and at least two of the second apertures positioned laterally on opposite sides of the at least one of the first apertures. See Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 16, the pair of parallel mounting extensions protrude from a bottom portion of the outer frame border. See Fig. 1.
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.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howell et al. as applied above.
Regarding claim 7, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the first shape be substantially spherical and the second shape be a substantially vertical extended oval, since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. See Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Regarding claim 15, discloses the claimed invention except for the material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the frame be formed of a thermoplastic polymer selected from the group consisting of polycarbonate and polyamide in order to have a light but sturdy frame, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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
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 DEREK J BATTISTI whose telephone number is (571)270-5709. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm M-F.
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.
/DEREK J BATTISTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734