Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
2. The claim 1 limitation “in the bag body” is being interpreted as meaning “in or on the bag body”. This seems in line with the originally filed disclosure and other claims. The drawings seem to show at least pockets 170 and 180 being external to or mounted on an outside of the bag body. Paragraph [0031] of the specification describes pocket 170 as being “provided on the front side of the bag body” and paragraph [0032] describes pocket 180 as being “provided on the front side”. The other claims seem to interchangeably use the terms “in” and “on” when describing pocket locations with respect to the bag body.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 3 is objected to because “condensed air” should be “compressed air”. Condensed air would be water. Applicant’s specification uses the term “compressed” in paragraph [0031] and “condensed” in paragraph [0034]. It seems the latter should be changed to “compressed” as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
5. 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 –
6. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Karton (US D411,659 S).
Regarding claim 1, Karton discloses a dog training kit comprising of: a bag body of an elongated profile (see Figures) having a proximal end and a distal end along a length of the bag body; five pockets disposed in the bag body (see Figures where six are shown); a left strap extending from the proximal end of the bag body (see Figures); a right strap extending from the distal end of the bag body (see Figures); and a fastener for fastening the left strap and the right strap (see Figures).
7. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Andrew (US 6,109,496 A).
Regarding claim 1, Andrew discloses a dog training kit comprising of: a bag body of an elongated profile having a proximal end and a distal end along a length of the bag body (see Figures); five pockets (16,20,34,36,44,46) disposed in the bag body; a left strap (60/76) extending from the proximal end of the bag body; a right strap (62/78) extending from the distal end of the bag body; and a fastener (80/82) for fastening the left strap and the right strap.
8. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by O’Connor (US D787,177 S).
Regarding claim 1, O’Connor discloses a dog training kit comprising of: a bag body of an elongated profile having a proximal end and a distal end along a length of the bag body (see Figures); five pockets disposed in the bag body (see Figures where seven are shown); a left strap extending from the proximal end of the bag body (see Figures); a right strap extending from the distal end of the bag body (see Figures); and a fastener for fastening the left strap and the right strap (see Figures).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yerby et al. (US D334,471 A) in view of Yue et al. (CN 211657546 U).
Regarding claim 1, Yerby discloses a dog training kit comprising of: a bag body of an elongated profile having a proximal end and a distal end along a length of the bag body (see Figures); three pockets disposed in the bag body (see Figures); a left strap extending from the proximal end of the bag body (see Figures); a right strap extending from the distal end of the bag body (see Figures); and a fastener for fastening the left strap and the right strap (see Figures). Yerby fails to disclose another two pockets for a total of five. Yue teaches that it was already known in the art for a waist bag like that of Yerby to include a series of open pockets in a top surface thereof (see Figure 1, internal pockets 71 and 72 both with top surface openings 4, as well as a few other top opening pockets). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the Yerby waist bag with two more pockets having top surface openings like those taught by Yue, the motivation being to increase the organizational capacity of the Yerby waist bag. To be clear, these would be open pockets in the top panel visible in Figure 3 of Yerby.
11. Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yerby et al. (US D334,471 A) in view of Yue et al. (CN 211657546 U) as applied above, further in view of Koseberg (US 5,447,227 A).
Regarding claim 2, Yerby as modified above would include the dog training kit according to claim 1, wherein the five pockets comprise a first pocket configured in a top portion of the bag body, the first pocket is open, as taught by Yue. The open top pocket as taught by Yue is inherently configured to receive a bone in that it is capable of receiving a bone should a user choose to place one therein. Yerby as modified above so far fails to include wherein the dog training kit comprises the bone. Koseberg teaches that it was already known in the art to utilize a waist bag for carrying pet supplies and teaches a bone being one of those supplies. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention as filed to have used the modified Yerby waist bag to carry a bone, where such use was already known in the art, as shown by Koseberg. Regarding the bone being placed in one of the open top pockets, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have chosen to store the bone in any of the pockets of the modified Yerby waist bag, including the open top pocket. There is no inventive step in simply choosing to place a known article in an existing pocket absent a showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 3, Yerby as modified above would include the dog training kit according to claim 2, wherein the five pockets comprise a second pocket configured in the top portion of the bag body, the second pocket is open and positioned adjacent to the first pocket and is configured to hold a can of condensed air, as taught by Yue. The open top pocket as taught by Yue is inherently configured to receive a can of compressed air in that it is capable of receiving a can of compressed air should a user choose to place one therein. Yerby as modified above so far fails to include wherein the dog training kit comprises the can of compressed air. Koseberg further teaches one of the carried supplies being an aerosol can (64), which would include compressed air. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention as filed to have used the modified Yerby waist bag to carry an aerosol can, where such use was already known in the art, as shown by Koseberg. Regarding the aerosol can being placed in one of the open top pockets, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have chosen to store the aerosol can in any of the pockets of the modified Yerby waist bag, including one of the open top pockets. There is no inventive step in simply choosing to place a known article in an existing pocket absent a showing of unexpected results.
12. Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yerby et al. (US D334,471 A) in view of Yue et al. (CN 211657546 U) and Koseberg (US 5,447,227 A) as applied above, further in view of Clementi et al. (US 10,646,026 B1).
Regarding claim 4, Yerby as modified above would include the dog training kit according to claim 3, wherein the five pockets comprise a third pocket configured on a front side of the bag body, the third pocket is configured to store treats for a pet, as originally taught by Yerby (see Figures). The front Yerby pocket is configured to store treats in that it is capable of storing treats should a user choose to place treats therein. Yerby shows both front pockets closed by zippers and thus fails to disclose the third pocket is closed by a magnetic flap. Clementi teaches that it was also known in the art for a pocket to be closed by a magnetic flap (45/50). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have replaced the zipper of Yerby with a magnetic flap, where such magnetic flap was already known to be suitable for such use in closing a pocket, as shown by Clementi. There is no inventive step in simply choosing between known pocket closures absent a showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 5, Yerby as modified above would include the dog training kit according to claim 4, wherein the five pockets comprise a fourth pocket configured on the front side of the bag body, the fourth pocket is configured to store excrement clean-up bags, as originally taught by Yerby (see Figures). whereon the fourth pocket has a hole for drawing the excrement clean-up bags one at a time. The other front Yerby pocket is configured to store excrement clean-up bags in that it is capable of storing excrement clean-up bags should a user choose to place excrement clean-up bags therein. Yerby fails to disclose the fourth pocket having a hole for drawing the excrement clean-up bags one at a time. Koseberg teaches that it was already known for a waist bag pocket like that of Yerby to include a hole (26) through which excrement clean-up bags (30) can be drawn one at a time. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided a hole in the other of the front Yerby pockets, the motivation being to allow a user to withdrawn an excrement clean-up bag during a dog walk in the manner taught by Koseberg.
13. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yerby et al. (US D334,471 A) in view of Yue et al. (CN 211657546 U), Koseberg (US 5,447,227 A) and Clementi et al. (US 10,646,026 B1) as applied above, further in view of Chudy (US D863,756 S).
Regarding claim 6, Yerby as modified above would include the dog training kit according to claim 5, but so far fails to include wherein the five pockets comprise a fifth pocket configured on a rear side of the bag body, the fifth pocket is closed by a zipper. Yerby shows no pocket on the rear side of the bag body. Chudy shows that it was already known for a waist bag like that of Yerby to include a zippered pocket on a rear side thereof (see Figure 3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided a zippered pocket on the rear side of the modified Yerby bag, where such pocket use and location was already known in the art, as shown by Chudy, the motivation being to increase the overall carrying capacity and organizational capability of the modified Yerby bag.
Conclusion
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN MATTHEW LARSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8649. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-3pm. 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.
/JUSTIN M LARSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734 9/16/25