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 § 112
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 7-19 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.
Claims 7-19 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.
Claim 7 sets forth that the first and second zipper each have a first and second terminal position at the top end of the first compartment. Claim 7 then further sets forth that the third zipper is disposed between at least one of the first or second terminal position and the top end of the first compartment. It is unclear how something can be located above the first and second terminal position and below the top end of the first compartment to be “between” if first and second terminal positions are at the top end of the first compartment. Moreover, there does not appear to be any support in the original drawings and specification for the location of this third zipper being located between the first and second terminal positions at the top end of the first compartment and the top end of the first compartment.
Claims 8-19 are included because the depend from claim 7.
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 7-19 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 7 sets forth that the first and second zipper each have a first and second terminal position at the top end of the first compartment. Claim 7 then further sets forth that the third zipper is disposed between at least one of the first or second terminal position and the top end of the first compartment. It is unclear how something can be located above the first and second terminal position and below the top end of the first compartment to be “between” if first and second terminal positions are at the top end of the first compartment. For the purposes of formulating a rejection on the merits, the third zipper will be read as disposed at the top end of the first compartment.
Claims 8-19 are included because the depend from claim 7.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meixner et al. (EP 2116464)(Meixner) in view of Martin et al. (GB 2523728)(Martin).
Regarding claim 1, Meixner discloses a bag (100) comprising: a compartment (100) having an interior volume, the compartment including one or more walls and a panel (1) surrounding the interior volume, wherein the panel(1) is movable between an open position (Fig. 2) that enables access to the interior volume, and a closed position (Fig. 1)that inhibits access to the interior volume; and a closure system including: a first closure mechanism including: a first zipper track (4) that couples the panel(1) to the one or more walls; and a second zipper track (4') that couples the panel to the one or more walls, wherein the first zipper track and the second zipper track are noncontiguous (as shown in figs. 1-2); wherein in the open position(fig. 2), at least one of the first zipper track and the second zipper track at least partially decouples the panel from the one or more walls, and in the closed position(fig. 1), each of the first zipper track and the second zipper track couples the panel to the one or more walls. Meixner further discloses closure mechanism (magnets 2, 2’) located on the panel (1) and first compartment for providing an additional closure mechanism. (It is to be noted that this closure mechanism could be consider two different closure mechanisms as there are two magnet sets (2 and 2’) located on either side and they are not the same magnet so therefore would be different.) Meixner does not teach four different closure mechanisms.
Martin discloses a bag/compartment (10) having fasteners (24a-24d) on a top end of the compartment (see fig. 5) and fasteners (26a-26d) on an upper end of a front panel for closing the bag/compartment. Martin further teaches that the fasteners are hook and loop fasteners (see page 5 lines 10) and can be replaced with different fasteners (for example magnetic fasteners (see page 5, lines 13-15) or alternatively, or in addition, the plurality of spaced-apart magnets may be secured on upper edges in place of the spaced-apart hook and loop fasteners. (see page 5 lines 16-18). As such Martin discloses that each of the plurality of spaced-apart fasteners may be either hook and loop fasteners or magnets. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the first and second set of magnets on the compartment and front panel respectively of Meixner with four spaced apart fasteners as taught by Martin where two of the fasteners may be magnets to form first and second magnets sets and two of the fasteners may be hook and loop fasteners to form first and second sets of hook and loop fasteners as this would provide fasteners across the entire opening width of the compartment. Regarding these spaced apart fasteners, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to choose two sets being hook and loop fasteners and two sets being magnets as there are a finite number of identified and predictable solutions as Martin teaches four spaced apart fasteners where each could be a hook and loop fastener or magnet with each engageable spaced apart fastener forming a set. This resulting structure would form four closure mechanisms that are considered to be “different” as each of these closure mechanism is a discreet element (whether magnet or hook and loop fastener).
Claims 1 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meixner et al. (EP 2116464)(Meixner) in view of Martin et al. (GB 2523728)(Martin) and Sturm (US 12274338)
Regarding claim 1, Meixner discloses a bag (100) comprising: a compartment (100) having an interior volume, the compartment including one or more walls and a panel (1) surrounding the interior volume, wherein the panel(1) is movable between an open position (Fig. 2) that enables access to the interior volume, and a closed position (Fig. 1)that inhibits access to the interior volume; and a closure system including: a first closure mechanism including: a first zipper track (4) that couples the panel(1) to the one or more walls; and a second zipper track (4') that couples the panel to the one or more walls, wherein the first zipper track and the second zipper track are noncontiguous (as shown in figs. 1-2); wherein in the open position(fig. 2), at least one of the first zipper track and the second zipper track at least partially decouples the panel from the one or more walls, and in the closed position(fig. 1), each of the first zipper track and the second zipper track couples the panel to the one or more walls. Meixner further discloses closure mechanism (magnets 2, 2’) located on the panel (1) and first compartment for providing an additional closure mechanism. (It is to be noted that this closure mechanism could be consider two different closure mechanisms as there are two magnet sets (2 and 2’) located on either side and they are not the same magnet so therefore would be different.) Meixner does not teach four different closure mechanisms.
Martin discloses a bag/compartment (10) having fasteners (24a-24d) on a top end of the compartment (see fig. 5) and fasteners (26a-26d) on an upper end of a front panel for closing the bag/compartment. Martin further teaches that the fasteners are hook and loop fasteners (see page 5 lines 10) and can be replaced with different fasteners (for example magnetic fasteners (see page 5, lines 13-15) or alternatively, or in addition, the plurality of spaced-apart magnets may be secured on upper edges in place of the spaced-apart hook and loop fasteners. (see page 5 lines 16-18). As such Martin discloses that each of the plurality of spaced-apart fasteners may be either hook and loop fasteners or magnets. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the first and second set of magnets on the compartment and front panel respectively of Meixner with four spaced apart fasteners as taught by Martin where two of the fasteners may be magnets to form first and second magnets sets and two of the fasteners may be hook and loop fasteners to form first and second sets of hook and loop fasteners as this would provide fasteners across the entire opening width of the compartment. Regarding these spaced apart fasteners, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to choose two sets being hook and loop fasteners and two sets being magnets as there are a finite number of identified and predictable solutions as Martin teaches four spaced apart fasteners where each could be a hook and loop fastener or magnet with each engageable spaced apart fastener forming a set. This resulting structure would form four closure mechanisms that are considered to be “different” as each of these closure mechanism is a discreet element (whether magnet or hook and loop fastener).
To the degree that the combination of Meixner and Martin only has three closure mechanisms that are different type of closure mechanism (namely, zipper disclosed by Meixner; magnet disclosed by Meixner and/or Martin; and hook and loop fastener disclosed by Martin), Sturm discloses a similar bag with a front panel (120) with webbing loops (174) positioned there along and a strap assembly include a pair of straps (172) with a pair of hooks (170) to engage the loops (174) to inhibit access to the interior volume and to disengage to enable access to the interior volume. (See figs. 13-14; col. 10, line 54 to col. 11, line 12) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the webbing loops to the front panel of Meixner as well as the straps and hooks as taught by Sturm to provide additional security for the interior volume of the bag of Meixner.
Claim(s) 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meixner et al. (EP 2116464) (Meixner) in view of Sturm (US 12274338).
Regarding claim 2, Meixner discloses bag(100) comprising: a compartment (100) having an interior volume, the compartment including one or more walls and a front panel (1) surrounding the interior volume, wherein the front panel is movable between an open configuration (fig. 2) that enables access to the interior volume, and a closed configuration (fig. 1) that inhibits access to the interior volume, the compartment having a back panel opposite the front panel, and the compartment having a top end (end adjacent 7/8) and a bottom end (end distal from 7/8); a closure system including: a first magnet (2,2' on tab 8) positioned along the top end of the compartment; and a second magnet (2,2') positioned along the front panel(1), wherein the second magnet is configured to couple with the first magnet when the front panel is moved to the closed configuration, and decouple from the first magnet when the front panel is moved to the open configuration. Meixner does not teach a loop positioned on the front panel; and a strap assembly including a strap extending from the back panel and a hook connected to the strap wherein the hook is configured to engage the loop to inhibit access to the interior volume and to disengage from the loop to enable access to the interior volume. Sturm discloses a similar bag with a front panel (120) with webbing loops (174) positioned there along and a strap assembly include a pair of straps (172) with a pair of hooks (170) to engage the loops (174) to inhibit access to the interior volume and to disengage to enable access to the interior volume. (See figs. 13-14; col. 10, line 54 to col. 11, line 12) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the webbing loops to the front panel of Meixner as well as the straps and hooks as taught by Sturm to provide additional security for the interior volume of the bag of Meixner.
Regarding claim 3, Meixner discloses the bag of claim 2, wherein the first magnet includes a first magnet interface that faces away from the top end and the compartment when the front panel is in the closed configuration. (see fig. 2 magnets 2,2' on tab 8)
Regarding claim 4, Meixner discloses the bag of claim 3, wherein the second magnet includes a second magnet interface that faces outwardly from an interior surface of the front panel and toward the compartment and the top end when the front panel is in the closed configuration. (see fig. 1 showing magnets 2,2' on front panel (1) and fig. 2 showing position of the interface)
Regarding claim 5, Meixner discloses the bag of claim 4, wherein in the open configuration 1), the first magnet interface faces opposite a pulling force (applied via pulling loop 7) and the second magnet interface continually faces outwardly from the interior surface of the front panel in a direction away from the top end when the first panel (1) is moved away from the top end.
Regarding claim 6, Meixner discloses the bag of claim 2, wherein the compartment has a front side (opposing side away from panel(1)) and a back side (side with tab 8 having magnets 2,2'), the first magnet and the second magnet are disposed adjacent to the back side relative to the front side when the first panel is in the closed configuration (fig. 2).
Claim(s) 7-8, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meixner et al. (EP 2116464) (Meixner) in view of Bullock et al. (US D950945)(Bullock).
Regarding claim 7, Meixner discloses a bag (100) comprising: a first compartment (100) including one or more walls and a front panel (1) surrounding an interior volume, wherein the front panel (1) is movable between an open configuration (fig. 2) that enables access to the interior volume, and a closed configuration (fig. 1) that inhibits access to the interior volume, the front panel (1) extending from a bottom end of the compartment to a top end of the compartment opposite the bottom end, and extending between a first side (left side of (100)) of the compartment and a second side (right side of (100)) of the compartment opposite the first side; and a closure system including: a first zipper (4') disposed on the first side, the first zipper is movable from a first starting position at the bottom end of the compartment to a first terminal position at the top end of the compartment; a second zipper (4) disposed on the second side, the second zipper is movable from a second starting position at the bottom end of the compartment to a second terminal position at the top end of the compartment, the second zipper is movable independent of the first zipper; wherein first starting position is spaced apart from the second starting position (see fig. 1-2), and the first terminal position is spaced apart from the second terminal position, by the front panel. Meixner does not disclose33 the front panel having a second compartment including an opening located at the top end of the first compartment and a third zipper to provide and inhibit access to the interior of the second compartment. Bullock discloses a similar bag having a first panel (surface opposite the surface with the backpack straps) for closing a first compartment with zippers as shown in figure 1. Bullock further discloses the first panel having a third zipper for a compartment in the first panel as shown in figures 1, 2 and 5 that is located at the top end of the first compartment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the second compartment with a third zipper to provide access to that compartment as taught by Bullock to the first panel that closes the first compartment of Meixner to provide a user with an additional compartment to hold other items separated from items placed in the first compartment.
Regarding claim 8, Meixner discloses the bag of claim 7, wherein the first zipper and the second zipper are noncontiguous, each of the first zipper and the second zipper have a longitudinal length extending from an upper end of the front panel to a lower end of the front panel. (see figs. 1-2)
Regarding claim 16, Meixner discloses the bag of claim 7, wherein the first zipper (4') includes teeth extending continuously from the first starting position to the first terminal position (ends of zipper 4'); wherein the teeth extend along a first portion, a transition region, and a second portion of the first zipper, the first portion extending from the bottom end of the compartment toward the top end of the compartment along a front of the compartment, the first portion terminates at the transition region, the second portion extending from the transition region toward the top end of the compartment and terminates at a back of the compartment. (as shown in fig. 1 - first zipper 4' has first portion extending adjacent bottom end of compartment to a transition region and then a second portion terminating at the top end of the compartment (end adjacent magnets 2,2' on tab 8) as the term "region" "portion" can be met by dividing the zipper into sections)
Regarding claim 18, Meixner discloses the bag of claim 7, wherein the second zipper (4) includes teeth extending continuously from a third stop to a fourth stop; wherein the teeth extend along a first portion and a second portion of the second zipper, the first portion extending from the bottom end toward the top end along a front of the compartment to a transition region of the second zipper, the second portion extending from the transition region toward the top end of the compartment and a back of the compartment. (as shown in fig. 1 - second zipper 4 has third and fourth stop (ends of zipper 4) and has first portion extending adjacent bottom end of compartment to a transition region and then a second portion terminating at the top end of the compartment (end adjacent magnets 2,2' on tab 8) as the term "region" and "portion" can be met by dividing the zipper into sections).
Claim(s) 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meixner et al. (EP 2116464) (Meixner) in view of Bullock et al. (US D950945)(Bullock). as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Martin et al. (GB 2523728)(Martin).
Regarding claim 9, Meixner, as modified above, discloses the bag of claim 7 and a first set of magnets long the top end of the compartment between the first side and second side and a second set of magnets disposed on the upper end of the front panel, the second set of magnets is removably coupled with the first set of magnets in the closed configuration, but does not disclose a first set of hook and loop fasteners along the top end of the compartment between the first and second side or a second set of hook and loop fasteners along an upper end of the front panel with the second set of hook and loop fasteners is couplable to the first set of hook and loop fasteners when the front panel is in the closed configuration. Martin discloses a bag/compartment (10) having fasteners (24a-24d) on a top end of the compartment (see fig. 5) and fasteners (26a-26d) on an upper end of a front panel for closing the bag/compartment. Martin further teaches that the fasteners are hook and loop fasteners (see page 5 lines 10) and can be replaced with different fasteners (for example magnetic fasteners (see page 5, lines 13-15) or alternatively, or in addition, the plurality of spaced-apart magnets may be secured on upper edges in place of the spaced-apart hook and loop fasteners. (see page 5 lines 16-18). As such Martin discloses that each of the plurality of spaced-apart fasteners may be either hook and loop fasteners or magnets. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the first and second set of magnets on the compartment and front panel respectively of Meixner with four spaced apart fasteners as taught by Martin where two of the fasteners may be magnets to form first and second magnets sets and two of the fasteners may be hook and loop fasteners to form first and second sets of hook and loop fasteners as this would provide fasteners across the entire opening width of the compartment. Regarding these spaced apart fasteners, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to choose two sets being hook and loop fasteners and two sets being magnets as there are a finite number of identified and predictable solutions as Martin teaches four spaced apart fasteners where each could be a hook and loop fastener or magnet with each engageable spaced apart fastener forming a set.
Regarding claims 10-15, Meixner as modified by Martin discloses two sets of hook and loop fasteners and two sets of magnets, but does not disclose two more sets of magnets. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Meixner/Martin to include more than four spaced apart fasteners, to include six spaced apart fasteners. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). See MPEP 2144.04 IV As set forth in addressing claim 9 above, regarding these spaced apart fasteners, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to choose two sets being hook and loop fasteners and four sets being magnets as there are a finite number of identified and predictable solutions as Martin teaches each of the spaced apart fasteners could be a hook and loop fastener or magnet with each engageable spaced apart fastener forming a set. Regarding the specific arrangements set forth in claims 11-15, these arrangements would also be obvious to try as there are a finite number of identified and predictable solutions as each of the spaced apart fasteners can be either hook and loop or magnet type.
Claim(s) 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meixner et al. (EP 2116464) (Meixner) in view of Bullock et al. (US D950945)(Bullock). as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Sturm (US 12274338).
Meixner discloses a bag (100) that can be fastened to another bag (100') but does not disclose one or more loops adjacent the first side of the first compartment and the first zipper between the first portion and the transition region or adjacent the second side of the compartment and the second zipper between the second portion and the transition region.
Sturm discloses a similar bag with a front panel (120) with webbing loops (174) positioned there along with one loop (left - 174) adjacent a first side and a second loop (right – 174) adjacent a second side and a strap assembly include a pair of straps (172) with a pair of hooks (170) to engage the loops (174) to inhibit access to the interior volume and to disengage to enable access to the interior volume. (See figs. 13-14; col. 10, line 54 to col. 11, line 12) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the webbing loops to the front panel of Meixner as well as the straps and hooks as taught by Sturm to provide additional security for the interior volume of the bag of Meixner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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 NATHAN JEFFREY NEWHOUSE whose telephone number is (571)272-4544. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30am to 4pm.
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, Edward Lefkowitz can be reached at 571-272-2180. 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.
/NATHAN J NEWHOUSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights