DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 parallel strap configuration (claim 10) and the webbed pattern connecting the belt (claim 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 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 10-14 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 10, the disclosure fails to describe the first and second connecting means joining together to define parallel single straps. Instead, each connecting means is separately connected to the bag to define parallel single straps (see applicant’s Fig. 2). For purposes of the art rejection, it will be assumed that the connecting means are meant to connect to the bag to form the parallel straps.
Regarding claim 13, the disclosure fails to describe the belt attached to the backpack via a webbed belt pattern. Instead, the strap is disclosed as attaching by placement between the faceplate and the cover attachment means (see applicant’s Fig. 8).
Claims 11-12 and 14 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 4-5 and 10-14 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 claim 4, “the body portion” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 10, “the one corner” lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 5 and 11-14 depend from the above claim(s) and are rejected for the above reason as they do not cure the deficiency.
Claim Interpretation – 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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, 3-4 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2009-201965 to Roppongi in view of US Published Application 2012/0097495 to Moore and US Published Application 2009/0117300 to Thompson.
Regarding claim 1, Roppongi discloses a configurable bag comprising: a bag body having a front panel (6) and a back panel (Fig. 1 – panel carrying shoulder straps) that are spaced apart from one another by a plurality of sides to define a main compartment within the bag body (Figs. 1-3); the bag body configured such that upon folding the bag body about a relative center of the bag body along an elongate axis thereof that extends from between a relative bottom and a relative top of the bag body, the back panel is folded on itself to transition the bag body from a first configuration to a second configuration the latter of which defines a facing relationship between folded-over portions of the backpanel (Figs. 7-11). Roppongi fails to disclose a faceplate. However, Moore discloses a backpack (Fig. 3) including a removable faceplate (304) extendable over at least a portion of the back panel (302 – see para. 0080 for placement on back panel). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included a removable faceplate in Roppongi to allow the user to decorate the bag as desired. The combination discloses cover attachment means (Moore para. 0080 – zippers, snaps, or hook and loop) disposed between the back panel and the removable faceplate and configured to form a secure connection therebetween, the back panel and faceplate folded on themselves during the claimed transition of the bag, and the second configuration defining a facing relationship between folded-over portions of the faceplate. The combination fails to disclose a webbed pattern or storage compartments. However, Thompson discloses a carrier including a plurality of horizontal and vertical straps formed on an area of the front panel to define a webbed pattern thereby (Figs. 8, 10); and a plurality of storage compartments (Fig. 11C) each comprising a plurality of storage compartment straps (220, 320 – Figs. 4-7) formed on a surface thereof such that the plurality of storage compartments are removably attachable to the front panel through interwoven cooperation between the plurality of storage compartment straps and the webbed pattern (Fig. 11C). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used Thompson’s MOLLE-type attachment to attach multiple storage compartments to the bag in the combination because it would increase the carrying capacity of the assembly. In the combination, the plurality of storage compartments are configured to be disposed on opposing sides of the foldable bag body while the foldable bag body is maintained in the second configuration (including multiple storage compartments over the panel would dispose some of them on opposite sides; alternatively, they are capable of being secured in opposing positions as claimed).
Regarding claim 3, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein the cover attachment means is at least one of a zipper, a hook and a loop closure and a plurality of snaps (Moore para. 0080).
Regarding claim 4, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein the back panel and the cover attachment means are configured to allow a bag accessory to be disposed between the body portion and the removable faceplate (an accessory can be placed between the body and the faceplate).
Regarding claim 6, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein the webbed pattern of straps formed on an area of the front panel are intermittently sewn into the front panel (Thompson Fig. 8 – at 170).
Regarding claim 7, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein the bag body defines a substantially rectangular shape (Roppongi Figs. 1-2). To the extent a more rectangular shape is desired, Moore discloses a bag having a rectangular shape (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have made the bag rectangular in the combination because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent bag shape for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roppongi, Moore and Thompson, further in view of US Patent 6,029,877 to Woods.
Regarding claim 2, the combination from claim 1 fails to disclose side panels. However, Woods discloses a backpack including a plurality of side panels (panels carrying zippers 28, 29) each of which are affixed to at least one of an adjacent front panel, back panel and side of the bag body (Fig. 1), each of the plurality of side panels securable to an adjacent other one of the plurality of side panels through attachment means (Fig. 1 – zippers for 28, 29 connect). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included zipper panels in the combination to allow for collapsing the bag to a smaller size when desired, as taught by Woods (Col. 2, lines 53-57).
Claim(s) 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roppongi, Moore and Thompson, further in view of US Published Application 2004/0065708 to Amram.
Regarding claim 8, the combination from claim 1 fails to disclose the claimed details of the shoulder straps. However, Amram discloses a backpack including a first strap (32, left Fig. 7) that at one end is secured to the bag body at one corner thereof (top left corner) and at a second end terminates in a first connecting means (snap hook);a second strap (32, right Fig. 7) that at one end is secured to the bag body at an opposing corner (lower right corner) of the bag body from the first strap and at a second end terminates in a second connecting means (snap hook), the first and second connecting means configured such that when the first and second straps are joined together, the configurable bag defines a messenger bag with a single diagonal strap that extends over the back panel (the straps are capable of connection via the first and second connecting means, which would yield a messenger bag as claimed). It is also noted that Amram teaches using two connected shoulder straps to form a longer strap (Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have connected the straps and used them as the shoulder strap in the Fig. 7 configuration of Roppongi as desired because the modification only requires a simple substitution of one known, equivalent strap element for another to obtain predictable results. Further, it would provide the option for a longer strap, which would fit a wider variety of body shapes and sizes.
Regarding claim 10, the combination from claim 8 discloses a first strap (32, left in Amram Fig. 7) comprising a first end (top end) that is secured to the bag body at a first corner thereof (upper left corner) and a second end (bottom end) that is secured to the bag body at a second corner thereof (lower left corner) that is spaced from the first corner along the elongate axis (Amram Fig. 7); a second strap (32, right in Amram Fig. 7) comprising a first end (top end) that is secured to the bag body at a third corner thereof (upper right corner) that is spaced from the first corner along a width axis and a second end (bottom end) that is secured to the bag body at an adjacent corner thereof (lower right corner) that is spaced from the one corner along the elongate axis (Amram Fig. 7); a first connecting means (snap buckle) formed adjacent the second end of the first strap; and a second connecting means (snap buckle) formed adjacent the second end of the second strap, wherein the first and second connecting means are configured such that when attached to the bag body, the configurable bag defines a backpack with a pair of substantially parallel single straps that extends over the back panel over the elongate axis (Amram Fig. 7).
Claim(s) 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roppongi, Moore, Thompson and Amram, further in view of US Published Application 2015/0108194 to Pino.
Regarding claims 9 and 11, the combination from claim 8 fails to disclose padded straps. However, Pino discloses a backpack including padded straps (Pino claim 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included padding on the straps to improve the comfort for the user.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roppongi, Moore, Thompson and Amram, further in view of KR 200388005 (“KR ‘005”).
Regarding claim 12, the combination from claim 8 fails to disclose a belt. However, KR ‘005 discloses a backpack including a belt (40) attached to the back panel with a belt attachment means (31, 32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included an attachable waist belt in the combination to make the bag more secure and stable on the user.
Regarding claim 13, the combination from claim 12 fails to disclose the belt connection being via a webbed belt pattern. However, Thompson discloses connecting items to a backpack using horizontal and vertical belt straps formed on a surface thereof to define a webbed belt pattern thereby (Figs. 8, 10, 11C). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used Thompson’s MOLLE-type attachment to attach the waist belt to the backpack in the combination because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent connection element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roppongi, Moore, Thompson, Amram and KR ‘005, further in view of US Published Application 2013/0240588 to Milligan.
Regarding claim 14, the combination fails to disclose the storage compartments attachable to the belt through the webbed pattern. However, Thompson discloses attaching storage compartments through a webbed pattern (see rejection of claim 1), including attaching them to a belt (Fig. 10). To the extent the straps are not clear on the belt, Milligan discloses a carrier that includes carrying straps on the waist belt. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included the connecting web on the entire exterior surface of the waist belt because it would increase the carrying capacity of the assembly while maximizing the versatility of placement for the compartments.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if the Section 112(b) rejection is addressed.
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