DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the strap attachment being removable (claims 1 and 13) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. See the Section 112(a) rejection below for more discussion.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 13 are objected to because they should read “the at least one strap attachment” to align with the first recitation of this element.
Claim 12 is objected to because it should read “attachment is [[be]] affixed”.
Claim 13 is objected to because it should read “eight strap attachment slots” in lines 14 and 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 and 4-15 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, the disclosure fails to describe the strap attachment as removable. The strap attachment (see applicant’s 1010 – Fig. 3) is attached to the rear panel in a non-removable way (see stitching in Fig. 3, for example). Nothing in the drawings or original specification/claims indicates that the connection is removable. For purposes of the prior art rejection, it will be assumed that the claim reads that the strap is removable.
Claims 4-10 and 12-15 depend from the above claim(s) and are rejected for the above reason as they do not cure the deficiency.
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 and 4-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 1,648,565 to Primley in view of US Patent 7,275,729 to Sherman.
Regarding claim 1, Primley discloses a personal carrier, comprising: a flexible front side panel (Fig. 1 – front panel) and a flexible rear side panel (Fig. 1 – rear panel) forming at least a first compartment (Fig. 1 – main compartment); the flexible rear side panel extending beyond the flexible front side panel forming a closure flap (6) extending over at least a portion of the front side panel to secure and protect items placed in the at least one compartment; the rear side panel including at least one strap attachment (15) including at least two strap attachment slots (right slot and left slot forming sleeve to accept 13 – Fig. 3) for receiving at least one strap (13) used to secure the personal carrier to a user in multiple body placement orientations and/or configurations (the strap and slots can be used to secure the carrier to multiple locations on the user, including many different orientations and configurations); wherein the at least one strap attachment is removable (Figs. 1, 3 – strap can be slid out of the strap attachment 15). Primley fails to disclose four strap attachment slots. However, Sherman discloses a strap attachment including eight slots (Fig. 2 – 20a-h), wherein two of the strap attachment slots allow for the at least one strap attachment to hold a strap in a horizontal orientation (slots 20c, g) and wherein two of the strap attachment slots allow for the at least one strap attachment to hold a strap in a vertical orientation (slots 20a, e) in which the strap is held in a vertical orientation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included multiple slots for the straps (Sherman Fig. 2, 3A), which would allow for holding the carrier at multiple angles, as desired.
Regarding claims 4-5, the combination from claim 1 discloses holding the strap in a left hand diagonal orientation and a right hand diagonal orientation (Sherman Figs. 2, 3A).
Regarding claim 6, Primley discloses wherein the first compartment is generally sized for carrying a notebook (the main compartment is capable of holding a small notebook).
Regarding claim 7, Primley discloses a second compartment (9) generally sized for carrying a phone/small notebook (the compartment is capable of this function).
Regarding claim 8, Primley discloses one or more slots (11, 12) configured for carrying pens and/or pencils (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Primley discloses wherein the closure flap includes a closure element (7) to releasably secure the closure flap to the front side panel (via engagement with 10).
Regarding claim 10, Primley discloses wherein the closure flap includes at least two strap receiving slots (slots on either side of channel 8) for securing the personal carrier to a user with a strap via an open closure flap (the slots are capable of receiving a belt (belt 13, for example) in the claimed orientation).
Regarding claim 11, Primley discloses using leather for the carrier (Col. 1, lines 35-36).
Regarding claim 12, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein the at least one strap attachment is affixed to the personal carrier rear side panel via thread (Primley Fig. 3). The combination fails to disclose the carrier being made from fabric. However, Sherman discloses using fabric in a carrier (Col. 4, lines 55-56). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used fabric in the carrier because the modification only involves choosing from a finite number of predictable materials to use in a carrier. The combination fails to disclose the claimed size of the compartment. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the carrier within the claimed size range, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 13, Primley as modified by Sherman discloses a personal carrier, comprising: a flexible front side panel (Primley Fig. 1 – front panel) and a flexible rear side panel (Primley Fig. 1 – rear panel) forming at least a first compartment (Primley Fig. 1 – main compartment); the flexible rear side panel extending beyond the flexible front side panel forming a closure flap (6 – Primley) extending over at least a portion of the front side panel to secure and protect items placed in the at least one compartment; the rear side panel including at least one strap attachment (Primley 15/Sherman Figs. 2, 3A) including at least eight strap attachment slots (20a-h – Sherman) for receiving at least one strap (13 – Primley) used to secure the personal carrier to a user in multiple body placement orientations and/or configurations (via 20a-h – Sherman), wherein two of the at least eight strap attachment slots (20c, g – Sherman) allow for the at least strap attachment to hold a strap in a horizontal orientation, and wherein two of the at least eight strap attachment slots (20a, e – Sherman) allow for the at least one strap attachment to hold a strap in a vertical orientation, wherein two of the at least eight strap attachment slots holds a strap in a left hand diagonal orientation, wherein two of the at least eight strap attachment slots holds a strap in a right hand diagonal orientation (20b, d, f, h – Sherman Figs. 2, 3A), and wherein the at least one strap attachment is removable (Primley Figs. 1, 3 – strap can be slid out of the strap attachment).
Regarding claim 14, the combination from claim 13 discloses wherein the first compartment is generally sized for carrying a personal computer, such as a notebook (the compartment is capable of holding a small personal computer). To the extent there is any doubt about the capability of the compartment holding a computer, modifying the compartment to be capable of receiving a computer would have been an obvious matter of design choice, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 15, the combination from claim 13 discloses a second compartment (9 – Primley) generally sized for carrying a phone (the pocket is capable of holding a phone), and one or more slots (11, 12 – Primley) configured for carrying pens and/or pencils.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Primley and Sherman, further in view of US Patent 8,899,458 to Heien.
Regarding claim 10, although Primley discloses the claimed subject matter (see above), in the spirit of forming a rejection based not only on the claimed invention, but also based on the disclosed invention, Heien discloses a carrier wherein the closure flap includes at least two strap receiving slots (Fig. 2 – slots accepting belt 34) for securing the personal carrier to a user with a strap via an open closure flap (Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included slots in the closure flap because it would provide an alternative carrying orientation as desired).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to applicant’s argument that the prior art fails to disclose the claimed elements (pages 7-9), the Primley/Sherman combination discloses the carrier with attachment slots as claimed.
As to applicant’s argument regarding the attributes of the strap attachment system (page 9), the Primley/Sherman combination discloses all of the elements of the strap attachment system recited in the claims.
As to applicant’s argument that there is no motivation to combine the prior art (page 9), see the above rejection, which provides proper motivation for each prior art modification.
As to applicant’s argument that there is no reasonable expectation of success in making the combination (page 9), it is well within the capabilities of one having skill in this art to modify Primley’s carrier to have multiple strap slots.
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 SCOTT T MCNURLEN whose telephone number is (313)446-4898. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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.
/SCOTT T MCNURLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734