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 10/29/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 BROWN
Claim(s) 1, 5-8, 10 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 4,799,731 to Brown.
Regarding claim 1, Brown discloses a chair comprising a portable storage device attached thereto (Fig. 2), wherein: the chair comprises a chair seat (50) having a top side and an under side (Fig. 2), the chair seat being configured to rotate between an upright position and a downward position (Col. 1, lines 7-11); and the portable storage device comprises: a storage pouch (11); a support flap (24) extending from an edge of the storage pouch (Figs. 1-2); and a stabilizing strap (Fig. 1 – strap having buckle 42) coupled to the support flap and the storage pouch, wherein the stabilizing strap secures the portable storage device to the chair seat such that the support flap is disposed on the top side of the chair seat and the storage pouch is disposed on the under side of the chair seat (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Brown discloses wherein the storage pouch comprises a zipper fastener (14).
Regarding claim 6, Brown discloses wherein the stabilizing strap is removably coupled to the support flap (via buckle 42).
Regarding claim 7, Brown discloses wherein the stabilizing strap is adjustable (see length adjustment strap portion extending from buckle 42 in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Brown discloses wherein the stabilizing strap comprises a first strap portion (strap portion on right of buckle 42 in Fig. 1) and a second strap portion (strap portion on left of buckle 42 in Fig. 1), wherein the first strap portion may be connected to the second strap portion (via buckle 42) such that at least the first strap portion may be adjusted (via the length adjustment strap portion extending from right side of buckle 42) to bring the storage pouch closer to the chair seat.
Regarding claim 10, Brown discloses a removal strap (15) affixed to the exterior of the storage pouch, wherein the removal strap is affixed to allow removal from the chair seat by pulling away from the chair seat (the strap is capable of this function).
Regarding claim 14, Brown discloses a method of removably attaching a portable storage device to a chair seat, the method comprising: obtaining a portable storage device of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection); and securing the portable storage device onto the chair seat (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 15, Brown discloses adjusting the stabilizing strap (through normal use of the releasable buckle 42 and the length adjustment capability of buckle 42) to removably secure the portable storage device to the chair seat.
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) 2, 9, 11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown in view of US Patent 10,681,988 to Andrews.
Regarding claim 2, Brown fails to disclose first and second steadying straps opposite each other. However, Andrews discloses a seat storage device including two connections per side between the storage pouch and the material on the top of the seat (Fig. 2 – see 14F, R). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included two straps on each side of the assembly in Brown because it would provide more strength and stability to the assembly and because the modification only involves a mere duplication of known elements (i.e. duplicating the side straps) having only predictable results. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). In the combination, one of the side straps is the stabilizing strap (claim 1) and two opposing side straps are the steadying straps.
Regarding claim 9, Brown fails to disclose flexible material. However, Andrews discloses that it is known to make a seat storage device from flexible material (Col. 3, lines 39-45). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used a flexible material in the portable storage device because the modification only involves choosing from a finite number of predictable materials to use in a storage pouch.
Regarding claim 11, Brown fails to disclose a waterproof surface. However, Andrews discloses that it is known to make a seat storage device from waterproof material (Col. 3, lines 45-46). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used a waterproof material in the portable storage device because the modification only involves choosing from a finite number of predictable materials to use in a storage pouch. Further, using waterproof material would protect the contents of the pouch from moisture.
Regarding claim 18, Brown fails to disclose loosening the stabilizing strap during removal of the storage device. However, Andrews discloses that it is known to loosen support straps when removing a storage device from a seat (Col. 5, lines 61-66 – openings in 14F, 14R are expanded). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have loosened the stabilizing strap during removal of the storage unit because it would make removing the storage unit easier.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown in view of US Published Application 2012/0031935 to Cook.
Regarding claim 3, Brown fails to disclose a carrying pouch. However, Cook discloses a seat storage device including a carrying pouch (49), wherein the carrying pouch is affixed to an interior of the storage pouch (Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included a carrying pouch in Brown to allow for separately carrying items within the pouch.
Regarding claim 4, the combination from claim 3 discloses wherein the carrying pouch comprises a fastener selected from a zipper, a hook and loop closure, a snap, a button, a drawstring, a magnet, or combinations thereof (Cook para. 0019).
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown.
Regarding claim 16, Brown fails to explicitly disclose the removal process. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have pulled the storage device from the chair because it only involves choosing from a finite number of predictable methods for removing the storage device (i.e. pulling it off the seat, releasing buckles 42 or both).
Regarding claim 17, the combination from claim 16 discloses a removal strap (15), but fails to explicitly disclose grasping the removal strap during removal of the storage device. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used the removal strap to remove the storage device because the strap is disclosed as a means for supporting/moving the storage device (Col. 1, lines 54-56) and using the handle during removal only involves choosing from a finite number of predictable elements on the storage unit to grasp during the removal process.
REJECTION BASED ON ANDREWS
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrews in view of Brown and US Patent 6,174,082 to Pelky.
Regarding claim 1, Andrews discloses a chair comprising a portable storage device attached thereto (Fig. 2), wherein: the chair comprises a chair seat having a top side and an under side (Fig. 2); and the portable storage device comprises: a storage pouch (12); a support strap (16L/R) extending from an edge of the storage pouch; and a stabilizing strap (14F) coupled to the support strap and the storage pouch, wherein the stabilizing strap secures the portable storage device to the chair seat such that the support strap is disposed on the top side of the chair seat and the storage pouch is disposed on the under side of the chair seat (Fig. 2). Andrews fails to disclose the chair seat being rotatable. However, Brown discloses a seat storage device that is used on a chair seat that is configured to rotate between an upright position and a downward position (Col. 1, lines 7-11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used Andrews’ support unit on a pivoting seat because it would expand the usefulness of the storage device by using it on a variety of different seats. Andrews fails to disclose the support strap being a support flap. However, Pelky discloses a seat storage device including a support flap (8) positioned on the surface of the chair (Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used a flap with connected side straps to support the pouch on the surface of the chair in Andrews because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent pouch support element (flap) for another (strap) to obtain predictable results. Further, using a thin, broad flap would be more comfortable for the user to sit on.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrews in view of Pelky and US Patent 4,085,873 to Schweitzer.
Regarding claim 12, Andrews discloses a portable storage device comprising: a storage pouch (12); a support strap (16L/R) extending from an edge of the storage pouch; and a stabilizing strap (14F) coupled to the support strap and the storage pouch; wherein, in an open position, the stabilizing strap secures the portable storage device to a chair seat such that the support strap is disposed on the top side of the chair seat and the storage pouch is disposed on the underside of the chair seat (Fig. 2). Andrews fails to disclose the support strap being a support flap. However, Pelky discloses a seat storage device including a support flap (8) positioned on the surface of the chair (Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used a flap with connected side straps to support the pouch on the surface of the chair in Andrews because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent pouch support element (flap) for another (strap) to obtain predictable results. Further, using a thin, broad flap would be more comfortable for the user to sit on. The combination fails to disclose a carrying pouch. However, Schweitzer discloses a storage device including a carrying pouch (32) wherein the carrying pouch is affixed to the interior of the storage pouch (Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included a carrying pouch in the combination to allow for more compact carrying of the assembly. The combination discloses wherein, in a closed position, the support flap, the storage pouch, and the stabilizing strap are inside the carrying pouch (Schweitzer Figs. 4-5).
Regarding claim 13, the combination from claim 12 discloses a first steadying strap (10, top left – Pelky Fig. 2), disposed between the support flap and the storage pouch, and a second steadying strap (10, top right – Pelky Fig. 2), opposite the first steadying strap, disposed between the support flap and the storage pouch.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrews, Brown and Pelky, further in view of Schweitzer.
Regarding claim 19, the combination from claim 1 discloses a method of collapsing a portable storage pouch, the method comprising: obtaining a portable storage device of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). The combination fails to disclose inserting the storage pouch, the support flap, and the stabilizing strap inside a carrying pouch. However, Schweitzer discloses a storage device including inserting all of the storage device elements into a carrying pouch (32 – Schweitzer Figs. 4-5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included a carrying pouch in the combination to allow for more compact carrying of the assembly. The combination discloses inserting the storage pouch, the support flap and the stabilizing strap inside a carrying pouch (Schweitzer Figs. 4-5).
Regarding claim 20, the combination from claim 19 discloses inserting a first steadying strap (10, top left – Pelky Fig. 2), a second steadying strap (10, top right – Pelky Fig. 2), and a removal strap (30 – Andrews) inside the carrying pouch.
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