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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 1: FIG. 1-5 in the reply filed on September 30, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the inventions are not independent or distinct. This is not found persuasive because the inventions are distinct.
Applicant argues that each of the embodiments disclosed is functionally equivalent to accomplish the same use. While each of the embodiments are functionally equivalent to accomplish the same use, they are structurally distinct and functionally distinct. The structures of first engagement portion, the second engagement portion and the engageable members in each of the embodiments are distinct and the function of the mechanically engageable bag stabilizer in each of the embodiments once attached to the bag walls via the attachment portions to alternate between a parallel position and a mechanically engageable longitudinal position is also distinct. Further, the prior art applicable to one embodiment would not likely be applicable to the other embodiments, thereby imposing a serious examination burden.
Applicant also argues that at least claims 1-8 are generic to all the alleged species. This is not persuasive or accurate. Claims 6-8 are not generic to all the alleged species. Claim 6 requires a separable hinge that remains mechanically engaged in both the parallel and longitudinal positions. In the embodiments of figures 6A-6F and 13, the tabular members are mechanically engaged when disposed in a longitudinal orientation then disengaged when in a parallel orientation. Claims 7 and 8 require a frictive material and a magnetic material. The frictive material and the magnetic material are only disclosed with respect to the embodiments depicted in figures 6A-6F. Claims 9 and 10 are also examples of claims that are not generic to all the species
Accordingly, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
It is also noted that claims 7 and 8, which require a frictive material and a magnetic material, are not generic and are not related to the elected species. The frictive material and the magnetic material are only disclosed with respect to the embodiments depicted in figures 6A-6F, which is not elected. Claims 7 and 8 are therefore also withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a nonelected species.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 8, “at least one engagement portion” should be --at least one of the first and second engagement portions--.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2, “engaging” should be --engagement--.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2, “engaging” should be --engagement--, and
In line 3, “each engagement portion” should be --each the first and second engagement portions--.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 3, “each engagement portion” should be --each the first and second engagement portions--.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 3, “mechanically” should be --mechanical--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 3-6, 11 and 12-16 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.
Claims 3 and 4 recite the limitation “the attachment portion attaches to the bag”. However, the claims are only directed toward the mechanically engageable bag stabilizer. The claims are not directed toward a bag or a combination of a bag and the mechanically engageable bag stabilizer. Accordingly, the recited structural relationship between the bag and the attachment portion creates confusion and renders the claims indefinite as it is unclear whether Applicant is claiming the mechanically engageable bag stabilizer or a combination of a bag and a mechanically engageable bag stabilizer.
For the purpose of examination, the attachment portion will be considered to be configured to attach to the bag.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “wherein the first engagement portion is disposed on the second tabular member and the second engagement portion is disposed on the first tabular member”. However, claim 1, from which claim 12 depends, requires “a first engagement portion disposed on the first tabular member and a second engagement portion disposed on the second tabular member”. However it is not clear how the first engagement portion can be disposed on the first tabular member as required by claim 1 and also on the second tabular member as required by claim 12 (same with the second engagement portion). Accordingly, the structure intended by the lanague of the claim cannot be ascertained.
For the purpose of examination, the first engagement portion will be considered to be disposed on the first tabular member and the second engagement portion will be considered to be disposed on the second tabular member.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the first and second tabular members are affixed to the bag via their attachment portions during manufacture or production of the bag”. However, the claims are only directed toward the mechanically engageable bag stabilizer. The claims are not directed toward a bag, a combination of a bag and the mechanically engageable bag stabilizer, or a method of manufacture of a bag with a mechanically engageable bag stabilize. It is therefore not clear what structure is imparted to the mechanically engageable bag stabilizer by the language of the claim.
For the purpose of examination, the first and second tabular members will be considered to be configured such that they are capable of being affixed to the bag via their attachment portions during manufacture or production of the bag.
Claims 14 and 15 recite the same limitations as claims 3 and 4 above and thus, are rendered indefinite for the same reasons provided above with respect to claims 3 and 4.
Claims 5, 6, 11 and 16 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, claims 3, 4 and 13.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barlier (US 2020/0122886 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Barlier teaches a mechanically engageable bag stabilizer attachable to a collapsible or foldable bag, said bag having at least an interior, an exterior, a mouth, a wall, and a base, said stabilizer comprising:
a first tabular member (102 and the like);
a second tabular member (104 and the like);
a first engagement portion (106, 108 and the like) disposed on the first tabular member;
a second engagement portion (114 and the like) disposed on the second tabular member;
an engageable member (106, 108, 114 and the like) disposed on at least one engagement portion; and
an attachment portion disposed on each of the first and second tabular members, said attachment portion securably attachable to the bag (paragraph 34-adheisve, a rivet, one or more snaps, one or more stiches, one or more fasteners, bonding) ;
wherein the first and second tabular members, once attached to the bag's wall via the attachment portions, alternate between a parallel position (FIG. 1B and the like) and a mechanically engageable longitudinal position (FIG. 1C and the like) (paragraphs 21-58, 60, 62, 63 and FIG. 1A-8C, 10-14, 16A-17).
Regarding claim 2, Barlier teaches the stabilizer of claim 1 above, wherein the attachment portion of the first and second tabular members is removably attachable to the bag (paragraph 34- one or more snaps).
Regarding claim 3, Barlier teaches the stabilizer of claim 2 above, wherein the attachment portion is configured to attach to the bag at a position along or proximal to the mouth (FIG. 8C).
Regarding claim 4, Barlier teaches the stabilizer of claim 3 above, wherein the attachment portion is configured to attach to the bag on only its interior, only its exterior, or areas of both (FIG. 8C).
Regarding claim 5, Barlier teaches the stabilizer of claim 4 above, wherein the engageable member is disposed entirely on the first or second engagement portion or partially on both the first and second engagement portion (FIG. 1A-8C, 10-14, 16A-17).
Regarding claim 6, Barlier teaches the stabilizer of claim 5 above, wherein the engageable member on both the first and second engagement portions interconnect to form a separable hinge that remains mechanically engaged in both the parallel and longitudinal positions (paragraph 63 and FIG. 17).
Regarding claim 11, Barlier teaches the stabilizer of claim 5 above, wherein the engageable members comprises a fastenable member disposed on both the first and second engagement portion that is capable of mechanical engagement when in the longitudinal position (paragraphs 58, 60, 62, 63 and FIG. 8-8C, 10-14, 16A-17).
Regarding claim 13, Barlier teaches the stabilizer of claim 1 above, wherein the first and second tabular members are configured such that they are capable of being affixed to the bag via their attachment portions during manufacture or production of the bag (paragraphs 21-58, 60, 62, 63 and FIG. 1A-8C, 10-14, 16A-17).
It is noted that the claims are only directed toward the mechanically engageable bag stabilizer. The claims are not directed toward a bag, a combination of a bag and the mechanically engageable bag stabilizer, or a method of manufacture of a bag with a mechanically engageable bag stabilizer. Accordingly, only the structure of the mechanically engageable bag stabilizer is being considered.
Additionally, it is noted that method limitations in a product claim do not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Thus, even though a product-by-process claim is limited and defined by a process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. Accordingly, if the product in a product-by-process claim is the same or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process. Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966; In re Marosi, 710 F2.d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Regarding claim 14, Barlier teaches the stabilizer of claim 13 above, wherein the attachment portion is configured to affix to the bag at a position along or proximal to the mouth (FIG. 8C).
Regarding claim 15, Barlier teaches the stabilizer of claim 13 above, wherein the attachment portion is configured to affix to the bag on only its interior, only its exterior, or areas of both (FIG. 8C).
Regarding claim 16, Barlier teaches the stabilizer of claim 15 above, wherein the engageable member is disposed entirely on the first or second engagement portion or partially on both the first and second engagement portion (FIG. 1A-8C, 10-14, 16A-17).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Namanny (US 12,162,642 B1), Cox (US 1,653,393 A), and Hughes, JR. et. al. (US 2017/0240318 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NINA KAY ATTEL whose telephone number is (571)270-3972. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-4PM EST.
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.
/NINA K ATTEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3734
/NATHAN J NEWHOUSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3734