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 Objections
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: “mole” should likely be “MOLLE”. 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.
Claim 1-27 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the forward surface" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that the forward surface is intended to be the outer surface.
Claims 2-11 are rejected as depending from claim 1 and therefore incorporating the indefinite scope.
Claim 12 recites “the pack defining a pass-through element allowing the muzzle of the firearm to protrude past the top ends of the cover element and support element, and the stock of the firearm to protrude past the bottom ends of the cover element and support element without supporting the stock when the pack is in the closed condition” and Claim 24 recites “where the barrel of the rifle protrudes from between top ends of the cover element and support element, and the stock protrudes from between the bottom ends of the cover element and support element” it is unclear if this is intended to positively claim the rifle including the muzzle and stock protruding from the backpack or if the language is intended to be functional. For this reason, the scope of the claims 12 and 24 is unclear. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that this language is intended to be functional and describe the configuration of the rifle within the bag when in use.
Claims 13-27 appear to all depend from incorrect claims. Noting claims 13-25 depend from claim 10 when it seems that they should depend from independent claim 12. Claims 26 and 27 depend from claims 17 and 18 respectively, when it seems that they should depend from claims 19 and 20 respectively. For this reason, the scope of claims 13-27 is unclear. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that 13-25 depend from claim 12, and claims 26 and 27 depend from claims 19 and 20 respectively.
Claims 13 and 14 recite “at least one fastener system” it is noted that no “fastener system” has been recited prior. For this reason, it is unclear exactly what is intended to be a fastener system. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that any fastener on the device can be considered a fastener system.
Claim 21 recites “the two straps of a backpack” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that the two straps of a backpack are intended to be a pair of shoulder straps.
Claim 22 recites “wherein a second carrying facility is a pair of handles” but does not depend from Claim 21 which recites a first carrying facility. It is unclear if the claim requires two different carrying facilities or if it can merely include a single carrying facility designated a second carrying facility, or if it does require some sort of first carrying facility, exactly what would be required to meet such a limitation. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that any portion of the device that can be gripped or carried in is considered to meet the unclaimed first carrying facility.
Claim 23 recites “The pack of claim 10 having least one lateral support facility with at least one adjacent lateral fastener” it is unclear exactly what this is intended to mean. Further it is unclear if the lateral support facility must include at least one lateral fastener or if it merely must be near/adjacent thereto. For this reason, the scope of claim 23 is unclear. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that the device must have some sort of laterally extending portion that is capable of supporting a device of attaching the backpack to a user, and must be near or incorporate a fastener.
Claims 13-27 are rejected as depending from claim 12 and therefore incorporating the indefinite scope.
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, 10, 12-17, 20-21, 24-25, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall (US 7,568,599 B2) in view of Dieguez (US 9,961,986 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Hall discloses a backpack structurally capable of supporting a rifle having an elongated body with a barrel having a muzzle at one end and a buttstock at an opposed end (Fig. 2A, noting straps 42 are capable of supporting a properly sized and shaped rifle), the backpack comprising, a back panel (48) having an outer surface and an inner surface (Fig. 2A), an upper edge, and opposed lower edge, a first lateral side edge, and an opposed second lateral side edge (Fig. 2A), a pair of shoulder straps (45 and 46) connected to the back panel and adjacent to the outer surface, such that a user may position the outer surface against his back with the shoulder straps about his shoulders, a cover portion (56) connected to one of the back panel first and second side edges (Fig. 2A), an elongated fastener having a back fastener portion (60) connected to the back panel (via 54) and a cover fastener (62) portion connected to the cover portion, the fastener selectably interconnecting the back panel and the cover portion at the other one of the back panel first and second side edges; the back panel inner surface including a rifle support facility (42, noting the straps are capable of supporting a rifle in a similar configuration as the skis shown in Fig. 2A) configured to removably support the rifle with the muzzle protruding beyond one of the top and bottom edges, and the buttstock protruding beyond the other of the top and bottom edges.
Hall teaches the ability to have a bifold or trifold arrangement of the body (Col. 5; Ll. 3-5) but to the degree that it can be argued that it does not specifically disclose the back fastener portion connected to the back panel, Dieguez demonstrates the ability to have a support portion and a cover portion having connectors attached thereto and connecting second edges thereof to one another.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Hall and use the teaching of Dieguez configure the panels such that the support and cover panels connect to one another at side edges because such a change would have required one known panel configuration for another and would have yielded predictable results.
To the degree that the pocket 74 is not clearly on the cover portion as interpreted, Dieguez further demonstrates the cover portion (1) including a storage compartment (7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Hall and further use the teaching of Dieguez and further include a storage compartment similar to that of (7) in order to allow the device to carry additional items or accessories.
Regarding claim 2, modified Hall and specifically Dieguez demonstrates the cover portion is movable between a closed condition in which the fastener is operable to connect the back panel and the cover portion and an open position in which the back panel and the cover portion form a single planar element with the fastener portions are remote from each other (Figs. 1 and 2 of Dieguez).
Regarding claim 3-5, modified Hall demonstrates the back panel and cover portion are configured to form a tube with open ends (Figs. 2A and 2B), wherein the upper edges and lower edges are disconnected from each other, the back panel and the cover portion are connected to each other only at the lateral side edges.
Regarding claim 6-7, modified Hall discloses the fastener is a linear element (60/62), the fastener has opposed ends, one at the top edge and one at the bottom edge.
Regarding claim 8, modified Hall discloses the rifle support facility includes a plurality of mounting points noting the connections of the upper and lower straps (42).
Regarding claim 10, modified Hall further discloses the rifle support facility includes a stiff panel (51).
Regarding claim 12, Hall discloses a pack for carrying an elongated object, capable of carrying a weapon having a barrel with a muzzle at one end and a stock at the opposing end (Fig. 2A), the pack comprising a cover element (56) having a top and bottom end, a first and second lateral side, at least one front face, and at least one rear face; a support element (48) having a top and bottom end, a first and second lateral side, a back face, a front face defining at least one attachment facility (42) structurally capable of supporting a firearm; at least one fastener defining at least a first part and a second part (60/62) operable to secure the cover element to the support element (via 54); at least one carrying facility (45/46) attached to the back face of the support element; the cover element connected to the back component along their corresponding first lateral sides (Fig. 2A); the cover element and support element being moveable between an open position (Fig. 2A) and a closed condition (Fig. 2B) in which the cover element overlays the support element; the pack defining a pass-through element allowing the muzzle of the firearm to protrude past the top ends of the cover element and support element, and the stock of the firearm to protrude past the bottom ends of the cover element and support element without supporting the stock when the pack is in the closed condition, when in use (Fig. 2B, noting a properly sized and shaped weapon would extend above and below the top and bottom edges).
Hall teaches the ability to have a bifold or trifold arrangement of the body (Col. 5; Ll. 3-5) but to the degree that it can be argued that it does not specifically disclose the back fastener portion connected to the back panel, Dieguez demonstrates the ability to have a support portion and a cover portion having connectors attached thereto and connecting second edges thereof to one another.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Hall and use the teaching of Dieguez configure the panels such that the support and cover panels connect to one another at side edges because such a change would have required one known panel configuration for another and would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 13, modified hall demonstrates at least one fastener system is a zipper (Col. 5; Ll. 54-55).
Regarding claim 14, modified Hall, demonstrates a linear fastener in the form of a hook and loop fastener (60/62), but does not specifically disclose a linear element having a buckle.
Dieguez demonstrates an attachment system including a linear element having a buckle (noting the strap and buckle 9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to take the modified device of Hall and further use the teaching of Dieguez and replace the hook and loop fastener with a strap and buckle because such a change would require the mere choice of one known detachable fastener and would have yielded predictable results. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to take the modified device of Hall and add a pair of straps and buckles to further reinforce the connection between the support element and the cover element to ensure that they do not become detached along an edge accidentally.
Regarding claim 15, modified Hall discloses the cover element and support element are configured to form a passthrough element with open top and bottom ends of the cover and support elements (Figs. 2A and 2B).
Regarding claim 16-17, modified Hall discloses the attachment facility includes at least one internal fastener (42), the attachment facility includes a plurality of mounting points noting the locations where straps (42) are attached to the support element.
Regarding claim 20, modified Hall discloses the support element has a frame (51, to the degree that 51 is a stiffening material that adds additional structure to the back pad, Col. 5; Ll. 28-35).
Regarding claim 21, modified Hall discloses first carrying facility is the two straps of a backpack (noting the pair of shoulder straps 45/46).
Regarding claim 24, modified Hall demonstrates the device structurally capable of securing a properly sized and configured rifle (in a manner similar to the pair of skis shown in Figs. 2A and 2B) such that the barrel of the rifle protrudes from between top ends of the cover element and support element, and the stock protrudes from between the bottom ends of the cover element and support element (Figs. 2A and 2B).
Regarding claim 25, to the degree that it can be argued the pocket 74 is not clearly on the cover portion as interpreted, Dieguez further demonstrates the cover portion (1) including a storage compartment (7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Hall and further use the teaching of Dieguez and further include a storage compartment similar to that of (7) in order to allow the device to carry additional items or accessories.
Regarding claim 27, modified Hall does not specifically disclose the frame is removeable, however such a change would require the mere choice to make portions separable. It has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Claim(s) 9, 11, 18-19, 23, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall (US 7,568,599 B2) in view of Dieguez (US 9,961,986 B2) as applied to claims 1, 10, and 12 above, and further in view of Gonzalez (US 10,470,553 B1).
Regarding claims 9, 11, 18-19, and 26, Hall demonstrates the support straps (42) fixed to the back panel, but does not specifically disclose the rifle support facility defines an array of molle slits in a panel, or the stiff panel defines an array of molle slits.
Gonzalez demonstrates a carrying backpack including a support panel having slots (28) therein through which a pair of support straps (76) are connected.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Hall and use the teaching of Gonzalez and connect the straps to the back panel by an array of slots because such a change would allow the user to remove and rearrange the straps therefore allowing the straps to more securely attach different sized objects therein. To the degree that it can be argued that the slits are not specifically MOLLE slits, such a change would have required a mere change in size of a component. i.e. changing the size of the slots and the size of the spacing to match the known MOLLE system. 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). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 23, modified Hall does not specifically disclose at least one lateral support facility with at least one adjacent lateral fastener.
Gonzalez demonstrates a backpack including a lateral support facility in the form of a waist belt (86), having a lateral fastener (88/90).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Hall and further include a waist belt in order to further attach the device to a user and allow for comfortable carrying thereof and providing additional support of the device.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall (US 7,568,599 B2) in view of Dieguez (US 9,961,986 B2) as applied to claims 1, 10, and 12 above, and further in view of Smith et al. (US 4,480,774 A)(Smith).
Regarding claim 22, modified Hall does not specifically disclose a second carrying facility is a pair of handles.
Smith demonstrates a carrier having a support element and a cover element and a first carrying facility (96) and a second carrying facility in the form of a pair of handles (98/100 or 102/104).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Hall and use the teaching of Smith and include a second carrying facility in the form of one or more pair of handles because such a change would allow the user to carry the device in additional ways or move the portions of the device relative to one another with obvious places to grab.
Conclusion
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