DETAILED ACTION
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 26-27 and 31 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 claims 26-27 and 31, the disclosure fails to support the magnets being individually coupled to a surface of the body and individually encapsulated. The disclosure fails to describe whether the coupling and encapsulating is individual.
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) 21-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Published Application 2013/0098954 to Inglis in view of US Published Application 2022/0400836 to Western, US Patent 4,323,180 to Sloop and US Patent 6,267,276 to Cook.
Regarding claim 21, Inglis discloses a magnetic attachment bag comprising: a body having a front face (near face in Fig. 1A) and a back face (far face in Fig. 1A); a magnet (16) coupled to the back face of the body, the magnet configured to attach the body to a ferromagnetic surface (the magnet is capable of this function). Inglis fails to disclose rings, an angled surface or a strap. However, Sloop discloses a carrier including a plurality of rings (44) coupled to the body; an angled surface (angled surface of 42 at flat portion of d-ring 44) formed on the body at each ring of the plurality of rings, the angled surface oriented at an oblique angle relative to the back face of the body (Fig. 1); and a strap (12) coupled to the plurality of rings; wherein the strap extends along the angled surface at the oblique angle relative to the back face (Fig. 1 – strap extents toward the user at the same angle as the angled portion of 42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included a strap, d-rings and an angled surface in Inglis to allow for carrying the pack at the user’s side as desired. To the extent there is a minor angle variation between the strap (12 – Sloop) and the angled portion (angled portion of 42 – Sloop), Cook discloses a carrier in which the strap extends from the ring at the same angle as the surface holding the d-ring (Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have oriented the strap at the same angle as the angled surface because the strap would be oriented at a variety of angles (including the claimed angle) during use, depending on the use and the size/shape of the user. Further, orienting the strap at the claimed angle only involves choosing from a finite number of predictable angles at which to orient the strap on the d-ring. To the extent Inglis fails to disclose a defined front and back face, Western discloses a carrier with a bottle compartment that is rectangular shaped. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have made the bottle compartment rectangular shaped in the combination because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent compartment shape for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 22, the combination from claim 21 discloses wherein the body defines a bottle-receiving cavity (12 – Inglis) and a secondary compartment (14 – Inglis), the bottle-receiving cavity and the secondary compartment each extending along a majority of a height of the body (Fig. 5). To the extent it is in question whether the secondary compartment extends along a majority of the height, Western discloses a secondary compartment that extends along a majority of the height as claimed (132). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have made the secondary compartment extend along a majority of the height of the bottle-receiving cavity in the combination because the modification only involves a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 23, the combination from claim 21 discloses wherein each ring of the plurality of rings is a D-ring (44 – Sloop).
Regarding claim 24, the combination from claim 21 fails to disclose a closure. However, Western discloses a bottle carrier including a closure coupled to an opening of the bottle-receiving cavity, the closure configured to tighten the opening around a beverage container received within the bottle-receiving cavity (draw string – para. 0030, last line). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included a closure in the combination to stabilize the bottle in the carrier, as taught by Western (“bottle stabilizer” – para. 0030)
Regarding claim 25, the combination from claim 24 discloses wherein the closure comprises a drawstring (Western para. 0030).
Regarding claim 26, the combination from claim 21 discloses wherein the magnet coupled to the back face comprises two or more magnets (16), each of the two or more magnets individually coupled to a surface of the body (Inglis Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 27, the combination from claim 21 discloses wherein each of the two or more magnets is individually encapsulated (Inglis Fig. 1B, para. 0073).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inglis in view of Western and Sloop.
Regarding claim 28, Inglis discloses a magnetic attachment bag comprising: a body having a front face (near face in Fig. 1A) and a back face (far face in Fig. 1A); a magnet (16) coupled to the back face of the body, the magnet configured to attach the body to a ferromagnetic surface (the magnet is capable of this function). Inglis fails to disclose rings or an angled surface. However, Sloop discloses a carrier including a plurality of rings (44) coupled to the body; and an angled surface (angled surface of 42 at flat portion of d-ring 44) formed on the body at each ring of the plurality of rings, the angled surface oriented at an oblique angle relative to the back face of the body (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included a strap, d-rings, and an angled surface in Inglis to allow for carrying the pack at the user’s side as desired. To the extent Inglis fails to disclose a defined front and back face, Western discloses a carrier with a bottle compartment that is rectangular shaped. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have made the bottle compartment rectangular shaped in the combination because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent compartment shape for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim(s) 29-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inglis, Western, and Sloop, further in view of Cook.
Regarding claim 29, the combination from claim 28 discloses a strap (12 – Sloop) coupled to the plurality of rings, wherein the strap extends along the angled surface at the oblique angle relative to the back face (Sloop Fig. 1 – strap extents toward the user at the same angle as the angled portion of 42). To the extent there is a minor angle variation between the strap (12 – Sloop) and the angled portion (angled portion of 42 – Sloop), Cook discloses a carrier in which the strap extends from the ring at the same angle as the surface holding the d-ring (Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have oriented the strap at the same angle as the angled surface because the strap would be oriented at a variety of angles (including the claimed angle) during use, depending on the use and the size/shape of the user. Further, orienting the strap at the claimed angle only involves choosing from a finite number of predictable angles at which to orient the strap on the d-ring.
Regarding claim 30, the combination from claim 29 discloses wherein the body defines a bottle-receiving cavity (12 – Inglis) and a secondary compartment (14 – Inglis), the bottle-receiving cavity and the secondary compartment each extending along a majority of a height of the body (Inglis Fig. 5). To the extent it is in question whether the secondary compartment extends along a majority of the height, Western discloses a secondary compartment that extends along a majority of the height as claimed (132). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have made the secondary compartment extend along a majority of the height of the bottle-receiving cavity in the combination because the modification only involves a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 31, the combination from claim 29 discloses wherein the magnet comprises two or more magnets (16 – Inglis), each of the two or more magnets individually coupled to and individually encapsulated within the body (Inglis Fig. 1B, para. 0073).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to applicant’s argument regarding the angled surface (page 5), see Sloop, which is applied above for this element.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights