DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to the above identified patent application filed on June 27, 2024. Claims 1 – 12 are pending and currently being examined.
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 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 1 – 10 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, line 9 recites: “a ventilated construction”. However, Claim 1, line 4 sets forth “a ventilated construction”.
The phrase “a ventilated construction” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is UNCLEAR to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language.
It is UNCLEAR if applicant is referring to the same “ventilated construction” as set forth in Claim 1, line 4 OR if applicant is referring to a different or separate “ventilated construction”.
Regarding claim 10, it is unclear what “high duty” means.
Further clarification is required.
Claim 9, lines 3 & 4 recites: “a vertical reinforcement”. However, Claim 9, line 2 sets forth “a vertical reinforcement”.
The phrase “a vertical reinforcement” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is UNCLEAR to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language.
It is UNCLEAR if applicant is referring to the same “vertical reinforcement” as set forth in Claim 9, line 2 OR if applicant is referring to a different or separate “vertical reinforcement”.
Further clarification is required.
Regarding claim 10, it is unclear what “high duty” means.
Further clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (U.S. Patent Number 7,832,743 B2) to Small in view of (U.S. Patent Number 8,562,213) to McBee.
Regarding claim 1, Small discloses the shaping system (10 or 100) for shaping deboned game meat, the shaping system (10 or 100) comprising:
the wrap (12) enclosing the deboned game meat, the wrap (12) comprised of the flexible heavy-duty material, the wrap (12) capable of wrapping around the deboned game meat vertically (See Figures 9, 10 & 11); and
the plurality of restraints {(i.e. 3 Strap Sets of (70 & 82) & 3 Strap Sets of (102 & 112) in Figures 1 – 11)} secured to the wrap (12), facilitating restraining and reinforcing the particular desired shape on the deboned game meat within the wrap (12).
However, Small does not explicitly disclose the mesh material with the ventilated construction, and wherein the heavy-duty mesh material with the ventilated construction capable of reducing spoilage, preserving quality, and reducing contamination of the deboned game meat during transportation.
McBee teaches the flexible mesh material (30) with the ventilated construction, and wherein the heavy-duty mesh material (30) with the ventilated construction capable of reducing spoilage, preserving quality, and reducing contamination of the deboned game meat during transportation (See Column 5, lines 4 – 8), (See Column 5, lines 66 & 67) (See Column 6, lines 1 – 22) (See Figures 3B, 4 & 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the flexible heavy-duty mesh material with the ventilated construction, and wherein the heavy-duty mesh material with the ventilated construction capable of reducing spoilage, preserving quality, and reducing contamination of the deboned game meat during transportation as taught by McBee with the shaping system of Small because the motivation only requires a simple substitution of one known equivalent textile material composition structure for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 3, Small discloses wherein the plurality of restraints comprising the plurality of horizontal restraints {(i.e. 3 Strap Sets of (70 & 82) & 3 Strap Sets of (102 & 112) in Figures 1 – 11) (these straps can be considered horizontal)} capable of restraining the deboned game meat at different vertical positions, facilitating restraining and reinforcing the particular desired shape on the deboned game meat within the wrap (12) (See Figures 9, 10 & 11), such that the weight of the deboned game meat is distributed more along the shoulder section of an outdoor sportsmen (i.e. via the Shoulder Harness in Figure 13), then along the lower back section of the outdoor sportsmen while hiking (the restraints are capable of this function) (See Column 4, lines 13 – 16) (See Figure 13).
Regarding claim 4, Small discloses wherein the plurality of restraints comprising at least two vertical restraints {(i.e. 3 Strap Sets of (70 & 82) & 3 Strap Sets of (102 & 112) in Figures 1 – 11) (these straps can be considered vertical)} capable of restraining the deboned game meat horizontally. Alternatively, straps 32 and 34 also satisfy the vertical restraints.
Regarding claim 5, Small discloses wherein the plurality of restraints {(i.e. 3 Strap Sets of (70 & 82) & 3 Strap Sets of (102 & 112) in Figures 1 – 11) totaling 6 Strap Restraints} comprising at least four horizontal restraints (70 & 112) capable of restraining the deboned game meat vertically (See Figures 1, 8, 9, 10 & 11).
Regarding claim 6, Small discloses wherein the plurality of restraints comprising a first horizontal strap (bottom 36 – Fig. 1), a second horizontal strap (middle 36), a third horizontal strap (top 36), a fourth horizontal strap (top 70), a first vertical distance (distance between bottom 36 and middle 36 – Fig. 1), a second vertical distance (distance between middle 36 and top 36), and a third vertical distance (distance between top 36 and top 70); wherein the first vertical distance between the first horizontal strap and the second horizontal strap is greater than the second vertical distance between the second horizontal strap and the third horizontal strap; and wherein the second vertical distance between the second horizontal strap and the third horizontal strap is greater than the third vertical distance between the third horizontal strap and the fourth horizontal strap (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Small discloses wherein the plurality of restraints comprising a plurality of horizontal restraints capable of restraining the deboned game meat vertically (Fig. 1), wherein a distance between each of the plurality of horizontal restraints increases progressively from a bottommost strap of the plurality of horizontal restraints to a topmost strap of the plurality of horizontal restraints (if the horizontal restraints are bottom 70, bottom 36 and middle 36, then the distance between bottom 70 and bottom 36 is less than the distance between bottom 36 and middle 36, which displays a progressive increase as claimed).
Regarding claim 8, Small as modified in claim 1 discloses further comprising the loading configuration (See Figure 1 - Small), the packing configuration, and the conveyance configuration; wherein the loading configuration being an open (See Figure 5 - Small), flat configuration (See Figures 1 – 5 - Small); the conveyance configuration (See Figures 9 & 10 - Small) being the partially folded configuration (See Figures 9 & 10 – Small), for enclosing the deboned game meat within the space defined by the mesh (McBee); and the packing configuration (See Figure 13 – Small) being the fully compacted configuration (i.e. Tightly Secured Wrapped in Figure 13 - Small).
Regarding claim 10, Small discloses the game shaping device (10 or 100) for transporting deboned game meat by outdoor sportsmen while hiking, the game shaping device (10 or 100) comprising:
the wrapping system (12) enclosing the deboned game meat; and
the restraint system {(i.e. 3 Strap Sets of (70 & 82) & 3 Strap Sets of (102 & 112) in Figures 1 – 11)} secured to the wrapping system (12);
wherein the restraint system {(i.e. 3 Strap Sets of (70 & 82) & 3 Strap Sets of (102 & 112) in Figures 1 – 11)} capable of restraining and reinforcing the particular desired shape on the deboned game meat (See Figure 11).
However, Small does not explicitly disclose the mesh capable of reducing spoilage, preserving quality, and reducing contamination of the deboned game meat during transportation.
McBee teaches wherein the wrapping system (10) having the mesh (30) capable of reducing spoilage, preserving quality, and reducing contamination of the deboned game meat during transportation (the mesh is capable of these functions).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the mesh capable of reducing spoilage, preserving quality, and reducing contamination of the deboned game meat during transportation as taught by McBee with the shaping system of Small because the motivation only requires a simple substitution of one known equivalent textile material composition structure for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim(s) 2 & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (U.S. Patent Number 7,832,743 B2) to Small and (U.S. Patent Number 8,562,213) to McBee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of (Canadian Patent Number 1,299,001) to Denny et al.
Regarding claim 2, Small as modified by McBee discloses wherein the heavy-duty mesh material (30) comprised of heavy-duty defining apertures allowing free flowing air from an outside of the heavy-duty mesh material (30) to an inside of the heavy-duty mesh material (30), such that the heavy-duty mesh material (30) further comprises an overall open area (See Figures 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4 & 5).
However, Small as modified by McBee does not explicitly disclose of at least 30%.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the mesh material further comprising an overall open area of at least 30%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
However, Small does not explicitly disclose yarn.
Denny et al., teaches the mesh material (30) comprised of yarn (i.e. ARLYN™ Yarn) (See Page 7, lines 20 – 26) (See Figures 2 & 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the mesh material comprised of yarn as taught by Denny et al., with the shaping system of Small because the motivation only requires a simple substitution of one known equivalent textile material composition structure for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 11, Small as modified by McBee discloses wherein the mesh (30) comprising high duty defining apertures allowing free flowing air, such that the mesh further comprises an overall open area (See Column 5, lines 4 – 8), (See Column 5, lines 66 & 67) (See Column 6, lines 1 – 22) (See Figures 3B, 4 & 5).
However, Small as modified by McBee does not explicitly disclose of at least 30%.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the mesh further comprises an overall open area of at least 30%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In addition, Small as modified by above does not explicitly disclose yarn.
Denny et al., teaches wherein the mesh (30) comprising high duty yarn (i.e. ARLYN™ Yarn) defining apertures allowing free flowing air, such that the mesh (30) further comprises an overall open area (See Page 7, lines 20 – 26) (See Figures 2 & 3)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the mesh material comprised of yarn as taught by Denny et al., with the shaping system of Small because the motivation only requires a simple substitution of one known equivalent textile material composition structure for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (U.S. Patent Number 7,832,743 B2) to Small and (U.S. Patent Number 8,562,213) to McBee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of (U.S. Patent Number 7,785,008 B2) to Schoenig et al.
Regarding claim 9, Small discloses further comprising reinforcement binding (i.e. via (13) in Figures 1 – 4) along an edge of the wrap (12) (See Paragraph 0034); a vertical reinforcement (32) secured along a middle portion of the wrap (12), capable of reinforcing the middle portion of the wrap (12); a vertical reinforcement (32) secured along a side portion of the wrap (12), capable of reinforcing the side portion of the wrap (12) (See Figures 1 – 4).
However, Small as modified by above does not explicitly disclose the bottom shelf secured along the bottom portion of the wrap.
Schoenig et al., teaches the bottom shelf (6) secured along the bottom portion of the wrap (2) (See Figures 1 & 9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the bottom shelf secured along the bottom portion of the wrap as taught by Schoenig with the shaping system of Small in order to keep the wrap in the open configuration during loading / unloading and prevent excess movement.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (U.S. Patent Number 7,832,743 B2) to Small and (U.S. Patent Number 8,562,213 B1) to McBee as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of (U.S. Patent Number 12,041,927 B2) to Hall.
Regarding claim 12, Small as modified by above does not explicitly disclose further comprising an overall inverted upside-down triangular shape, such that a weight of the deboned game meat is distributed more along a shoulder section of the outdoor sportsmen, then along a lower back section of the outdoor sportsmen while hiking.
Hall teaches further comprising an overall inverted upside-down triangular shape, such that a weight of the deboned game meat is distributed more along a shoulder section of the outdoor sportsmen, then along the lower back section of the outdoor sportsmen while hiking (See Figures 1 & 9 – the shape is capable of this function).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make an overall inverted upside-down triangular shape, such that a weight of the deboned game meat is distributed more along a shoulder section of the outdoor sportsmen, then along the lower back section of the outdoor sportsmen while hiking as taught by Hall with the shaping system of Small because the motivation only requires a simple substitution of one known equivalent game hauler shape for another to obtain predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(U.S. Patent Publication Number 2006 / 0043135 A1) to Lindsey teaches the flexible heavy-duty mesh material (4) with the ventilated construction (See Paragraph 0052), and wherein the heavy-duty mesh material (4) with the ventilated construction (See Paragraph 0052) capable of reducing spoilage, preserving quality, and reducing contamination of the deboned game meat during transportation.
(U.S. Patent Number 6,508,077 B1) to Vander Boegh et al., teaches the flexible mesh material.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LESTER L VANTERPOOL whose telephone number is (571)272-8028. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00.
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 J. 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.
/L.L.V/Examiner, Art Unit 3734
/SCOTT T MCNURLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734