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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/3/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 following elements must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Regarding claim 7, the drawings must show the strip shaped accommodating bag accommodating both of the supporting bars in the first state.
Regarding claim 8, the drawings must show a backpack surface covering the supporting back vest; the backpack surface and the supporting back vest are enclosed to form a backpack accommodating space; the backpack accommodating space is provided with an opening in a top; the strip-shaped accommodating bag is configured to extend downwards from the opening to a bottom close to the backpack accommodating space; and the strip-shaped accommodating bag is provided with an open hole close to the opening.
Regarding claim 9, the drawings must show wherein the supporting back vest is provided with a bag cover that is able to cover the open hole.
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 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 8-10 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 claim 8, the disclosure fails to describe how the backpack surface and the supporting back vest are enclosed to form a backpack accommodating space. Applicant’s Fig. 4 appears to show a vest attached to a standard enclosed backpack, but the vest is not enclosed.
Claims 9-10 depend from the above claim(s) and are rejected for the above reason as they do not cure the deficiency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 2-5 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.
Regarding claims 2-3, the term “roughly” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 4-5 depend from the above claim(s) and are rejected for the above reason as they do not cure the deficiency.
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.
REJECTION BASED ON ZEIDLER
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 804230 to Zeidler.
Regarding claim 1, Zeidler discloses a backpack supporting bar, comprising a first supporting sub-bar (8’) and a second supporting sub-bar (8”) connected to the first supporting sub-bar, wherein end portions of the first supporting sub-bar and the second supporting sub-bar are movably connected to each other (Figs. 1-2); and the backpack supporting bar has a first state where the entire backpack supporting bar extends for supporting (Fig. 1), and a second state where adjacent supporting sub-bars are folded to each other (Figs. 3-4).
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.
REJECTION BASED ON ABLES
Claim(s) 1 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 9,119,460 to Ables in view of Zeidler.
Regarding claim 1, Ables discloses a backpack supporting bar (110). Ables fails to disclose the bar being collapsible. However, Zeidler discloses a backpack supporting bar comprising a first supporting sub-bar (8’) and a second supporting sub-bar (8”) connected to the first supporting sub-bar, wherein end portions of the first supporting sub-bar and the second supporting sub-bar are movably connected to each other (Figs. 1-2); and the backpack supporting bar has a first state where the entire backpack supporting bar extends for supporting (Fig. 1), and a second state where adjacent supporting sub-bars are folded to each other (Figs. 3-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have made the supporting bar collapsible in Ables to allow for compact storage when the bar is not in use.
Regarding claim 6, the combination from claim 1 discloses a supporting back vest (Ables 320, 312) and two backpack supporting bars according to claim 1 (Ables Fig. 5, as modified), wherein the two backpack supporting bars are detachably adapted and connected to the supporting back vest (Ables Col. 4, lines 21-24).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ables and Zeidler, further in view of US Published Application 2010/0294820 to Neiberger.
Regarding claim 2, the combination from claim 1 fails to disclose the supporting bar having an S-shape. However, Neiberger discloses a backpack support bar that is roughly S-shaped (Fig. 2) wherein a top portion bends in a first direction to form a first supporting arc (Fig. 2); and a bottom portion bends in a second direction opposite to the first direction to form a second supporting arc (Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have made the supporting bar roughly S-shaped in the combination because it would be more ergonomic by conforming better to a user’s back. In the combination, the first supporting sub-bar (i.e. top portion) bends in the first direction and the second supporting sub-bar (i.e. bottom portion) bends in the second direction.
Regarding claim 3, the combination from claim 2 discloses wherein the backpack supporting bar is roughly flat (Ables), and the first direction and the second direction are perpendicular to a flat surface of the backpack supporting bar, respectively (Neiberger Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ables, Zeidler and Neiberger, further in view of US Published Application 2021/0298462 to Joye.
Regarding claim 4, the combination from claim 2 discloses wherein adjacent end portions of the first supporting sub-bar and the second supporting sub-bar are rotatably connected (at 10 – Zeidler). The combination fails to disclose sleeves. However, Joye discloses a carrier including two protective end sleeves (13) for a structural bar. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included end sleeves in the combination to cover the sharp edges of the bar, as taught by Joye (para. 0035). In the combination, the two protective end sleeves are respectively arranged at end portions, facing away from each other, of the first supporting sub-bar and the second supporting sub-bar.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ables, Zeidler, Neiberger and Joye, further in view of US Published Application 2015/0157115 to Smith.
Regarding claim 5, the combination from claim 4 fails to disclose the pivot fastener being a rivet. However, Smith discloses a backpack configuration and discloses that rivets are known fasteners in this art (para. 0032). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have made the pivot fastener a rivet in the combination because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent fastener for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ables and Zeidler, further in view of US Patent 9,271,559 to Gleason.
Regarding claim 7, the combination from claim 1 discloses each stay accommodated in separate strip-shaped accommodation bags (Ables), wherein an outer side of the supporting back vest is connected with straps (312 – Ables Fig. 10). The combination fails to disclose a single accommodating bag. However, Gleason discloses a carrier support in which two stays (46) are accommodated in a single receptacle (Fig. 3 – top and bottom pocket portions of assembly receiving 46, 48, 50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have positioned the stays within a cover and then positioned the covered assembly within a single strip-shaped accommodating bag (similar to Ables’ strip-shaped bag) because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent stay configuration (two stays in a single bag) for another (two stays in separate bags) to obtain predictable results. In the combination, the strip-shaped accommodating bag is arranged on an inner side of the supporting back vest (Ables Fig. 10).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ables, Zeidler and Gleason, further in view of US Published Application 2024/0365955 to Eberle.
Regarding claim 8, the combination from claim 7 fails to disclose a backpack surface. However, Eberle discloses a carrier that comprises a backpack and a backpack surface covering the supporting back vest (Fig. 7); the backpack surface and the supporting back vest are enclosed to form a backpack accommodating space (interior of portion under 119 – Fig. 7); the backpack accommodating space is provided with an opening in a top (opening closed by 119 – Fig. 7); the strip-shaped accommodating bag is configured to extend downwards from the opening to a bottom close to the backpack accommodating space (Eberle Fig. 7/Ables Fig. 10 – the stays and bag would extend from close to the opening to a position close to the backpack accommodating space); and the strip-shaped accommodating bag is provided with an open hole close to the opening (upper end of sleeve has an opening secured with hook and loop – Ables Col. 4, lines 21-24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included a backpack in the combination to allow the user to carry items hands-free.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ables, Zeidler, Gleason and Eberle, further in view of Neibarger.
Regarding claim 9, the combination from claim 8 discloses wherein the supporting back vest is provided with a bag cover (Ables Annotated Fig. 12 below (covering the single strip-shaped bag in the combination)) that is able to cover the open hole. To the extend there is any doubt about the cover, Neibarger discloses using a flap to cover a pocket (para. 0032; Fig. 2 – closure of pouch 55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have made the closure a cover because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent closure element for another to obtain predictable results. In the combination, the cover is closed with the hook and loop disclosed in Ables.
PNG
media_image1.png
681
474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ables Annotated Fig. 12
Regarding claim 10, the combination from claim 9 discloses wherein the bag cover covers the open hole through hook and loop fastener (Ables Col. 4, lines 21-24).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references disclose configurations similar to that disclosed by applicant.
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