DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/4/2025 has been entered.
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 NETIX
Claim(s) 1, 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Netixfitness.com (“Netix” – NPL cited 11/8/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Netix discloses a magnetic attachment bag comprising: a back panel (back panel of backpack); at least one magnet (page 9); and at least one compartment (any of the small zippered compartments shown on page 6) for organizing and storing items within said magnetic attachment bag (the compartment is capable of this function); wherein said magnet is positioned to securely attach said magnetic attachment bag to magnetized surfaces (pages 7, 9).
Regarding claim 6, Netix discloses a pocket (main pocket of backpack or side pocket on page 7); and wherein said pocket can store and secure a commonly-sized reusable water bottle (the pockets are capable of this function, depending on the size/shape of the bottle).
Regarding claim 8, Netix discloses a plurality of webbing mounting points (the top handle, and each of the shoulder straps are capable of mounting to a webbing using any conventional method, including straps).
REJECTION BASED ON VELITES
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 8-9, 12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Youtube.com (“Velites” – NPL cited 11/8/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Velites discloses a magnetic attachment bag comprising: a back panel (back panel of smaller bag); at least one magnet (magnets on back panel of smaller bag – Velites Screenshot 5); and at least one compartment (main compartment of smaller bag) for organizing and storing items within said magnetic attachment bag (the compartment is capable of this function); wherein said magnet is positioned to securely attach said magnetic attachment bag to magnetized surfaces (Velites Screenshot 6).
Regarding claim 3, Velites discloses a magnetic accessory module (larger backpack), wherein said magnetic accessory module attaches to said magnetic attachment bag (Velites Screenshot 3).
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Velites discloses a top handle (top handle on smaller bag).
Regarding claim 8, Velites discloses a plurality of webbing mounting points (the shoulder strap on the small bag itself and the ring that attaches the shoulder strap to the top of the smaller bag – both are capable of attaching to webbing using any conventional method, including straps).
Regarding claim 9, Velites discloses a magnetic attachment bag comprising: a back panel (back panel of smaller bag); at least one magnet (magnets on back panel of smaller bag – Velites Screenshot 5); at least one compartment (main compartment of smaller bag) for organizing and storing items within said magnetic attachment bag (the compartment is capable of this function); and a magnetic accessory module (larger backpack); wherein said magnet is positioned to securely attach said magnetic attachment bag to magnetized surfaces (Velites Screenshot 6); and wherein said magnetic accessory module attaches to said magnetic attachment bag (Velites Screenshot 3).
Regarding claim 15, Velites discloses a plurality of webbing mounting points (the shoulder strap for the smaller bag itself and the ring that attaches the shoulder strap to the top of the smaller bag – both are capable of attaching to webbing using any conventional method, including straps).
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 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velites in view of US Published Application 2018/0049493 to Graves and US Patent 9,308,976 to Peterson.
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Velites fails to disclose shielding for the magnet. However, Graves discloses a carrier with a magnet wherein the magnet is shielded to prevent interference with items stored within the compartment (para. 0071). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included shielding in the backpanel in Velites to mitigate magnetic fields exposure for contents of the pocket, as taught by Graves (para. 0071). The combination fails to disclose whether the magnet is encapsulated within the back panel. However, Peterson discloses a magnetically attachable bag wherein the magnets are encapsulated within the back panel (Fig. 8; Col. 3, lines 7-11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have encapsulated the magnets within the back panel in the combination to provide additional protection for the magnets. Further, the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent magnetic mounting method for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim(s) 4 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velites in view of US Published Application 2013/0098954 to Inglis.
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Velites fails to disclose a phone secured to the bag. However, Inglis discloses a carrier including a phone (28) in a pocket (14) attached to the main compartment (Fig. 1A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have attached a phone to the backpack using a pocket in Velites because it would expand the carrying capacity of the system to allow for carrying a phone. In the combination, the magnetic accessory module magnetically secures a phone to the magnetic attachment bag (the backpack holds a phone and is magnetically secured to the magnetic attachment bag).
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velites in view of US Patent 6,401,993 to Andrino, US Patent 6,474,523 to Morrison and US Published Application 2024/0349691 to Reisberg.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Velites discloses a strap on the magnetic attachment bag (Velites Screenshot 4) to carry the bag in a crossbody-style configuration (Velites audio @ 11:15; the strap is capable of this function). Velites fails to disclose the strap being adjustable, hooks, or a fanny pack configuration. However, Andrino discloses an adjustable strap (18); a plurality of hooks (32A, 32B); an adjuster (20A, 20B); wherein said plurality of hooks and said adjuster are on said adjustable strap; and wherein said adjustable strap can convert said magnetic attachment bag between a shoulder configuration and a fanny pack-style configuration (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used an adjustable strap in Velites because it would make the carrier adjustable to a wider variety of user preferences and would allow for adjusting the strap between a crossbody and fanny pack configuration. The combination fails to disclose a buckle. However, Morrison discloses a shoulder/waist bag that includes a buckle in the middle of the strap (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included a buckle in the middle of the strap in the combination because it would make removing and attaching the strap easier by providing an additional attachment/detachment point. The combination fails to disclose a magnetic buckle. However, Reisberg discloses a carrier including a magnetic strap buckle (150 – para. 0110). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have made the buckle magnetic because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent buckle element for another to obtain predictable results. In the combination, the magnetic buckle is on the adjustable strap.
Claim(s) 6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velites in view of Morrison.
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Velites fails to disclose a pocket. However, Morrison discloses a carrier that has a compartment (front 28) and a pocket (main body 28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have added a front compartment to Velites, making the main body the pocket, because it would allow the user to separate more items as desired. In the combination, the pocket can store and secure a commonly-sized reusable water bottle (the pocket is capable of this function, depending on the size/shape of the bottle).
Claim(s) 16-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velites in view of Graves and Morrison.
Regarding claim 16, Velites discloses a magnetic attachment bag comprising: a back panel (back panel of smaller bag); at least one magnet (magnets on back panel of smaller bag – Velites Screenshot 5); at least one compartment (main compartment of smaller bag) for organizing and storing items within said magnetic attachment bag (the compartment is capable of this function); a magnetic accessory module (larger backpack); and a zipper (zipper on smaller bag); wherein said magnet is positioned to securely attach said magnetic attachment bag to magnetized surfaces (Velites Screenshot 6); and wherein said magnetic accessory module attaches to said magnetic attachment bag (Velites Screenshot 3). Velites fails to disclose a plurality of zippers. However, Morrison discloses a carrier that has a zippered compartment (front 28) and a zippered pocket (main body 28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have added a front zippered compartment to Velites (i.e. a compartment) because it would allow the user to separate more items as desired. Velites fails to disclose shielding for the magnet. However, Graves discloses a carrier with a magnet wherein the magnet is shielded to prevent interference with items stored within the compartment (para. 0071). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included shielding in the backpanel in Velites to mitigate magnetic fields exposure for contents of the pocket, as taught by Graves (para. 0071).
Regarding claim 17, Velites discloses a top handle (top handle on smaller bag).
Regarding claim 18, the combination from claim 16 discloses a pocket (main body pocket of smaller bag); and wherein said pocket can store and secure a commonly-sized reusable water bottle (the pocket is capable of this function, depending on the size/shape of the bottle).
Regarding claim 20, Velites discloses a plurality of webbing mounting points (the shoulder strap on the small bag itself and the ring that attaches the shoulder strap to the top of the smaller bag – both are capable of attaching to webbing using any conventional method, including straps).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velites, Graves and Morrison, further in view of Andrino and Reisberg.
Regarding claim 19, Velites discloses a strap on the magnetic attachment bag (Velites Screenshot 4) to carry the bag in a crossbody-style configuration (Velites audio @ 11:15; the strap is capable of this function). Velites fails to disclose the strap being adjustable, hooks, or a fanny pack configuration. However, Andrino discloses an adjustable strap (18); a plurality of hooks (32A, 32B); an adjuster (20A, 20B); wherein said plurality of hooks and said adjuster are on said adjustable strap; and wherein said adjustable strap can convert said magnetic attachment bag between a shoulder configuration and a fanny pack-style configuration (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used an adjustable strap in Velites because it would make the carrier adjustable to a wider variety of user preferences and would allow for adjusting the strap between a crossbody and fanny pack configuration. The combination fails to disclose a buckle. However, Morrison discloses a shoulder/waist bag that includes a buckle in the middle of the strap (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included a buckle in the middle of the strap in the combination because it would make removing and attaching the strap easier by providing an additional attachment/detachment point. The combination fails to disclose a magnetic buckle. However, Reisberg discloses a carrier including a magnetic strap buckle (150 – para. 0110). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have made the buckle magnetic because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent buckle element for another to obtain predictable results. In the combination, the magnetic buckle is on the adjustable strap.
Claim(s) 8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velites in view of US Published Application 2014/0151424 to Hexels.
Regarding claims 8 and 15, although the prior art above discloses this claim element (see rejection of claims 8 and 15 above), to remove all doubt, Hexels discloses a carry bag that includes a plurality of webbing mounting points (Fig. 1 – see MOLLE webbing mounts on outside of backpack). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included MOLLE webbing mounts on one or more surfaces of the bag in the combination to allow for carrying additional items on the bag as desired.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velites, Graves and Morrison, further in view of Hexels.
Regarding claim 20, although the prior art above discloses this claim element (see rejection of claim 20 above), to remove all doubt, Hexels discloses a carry bag that includes a plurality of webbing mounting points (Fig. 1 – see MOLLE webbing mounts on outside of backpack). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included MOLLE webbing mounts on one or more surfaces of the bag in the combination to allow for carrying additional items on the bag as desired.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/4/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to applicant’s argument that the prior art fails to disclose a plurality of webbing mounting points (page 7), the broadest reasonable interpretation of this term would include areas that are capable of mounting to webbing. Nothing in the claims defines what would or would not constitute a webbing mount point except the name used in the claims. The specification similarly does not describe what a webbing mount would be, except to use the name “webbing mounting points”. In Netix, the top handle and shoulder straps are capable of mounting to a webbing using any conventional method including straps. In Velites, the shoulder strap for the smaller bag and the ring that attaches the shoulder strap to the top of the smaller bag are capable of attaching to a webbing using any conventional method, including straps. However, to remove all doubt, Hexels has been additionally applied for its disclosure of MOLLE-type webbing mounting points.
As to applicant’s argument that the prior art fails to disclose the magnet encapsulated within the back panel (page 8), see Peterson, which is applied above for this feature.
As to applicant’s argument that the prior art fails to disclose “wherein said pocket can store and secure a reusable water bottle” (page 9), the main body of the carrier in the Velites/Morrison combination would be capable of this function (for example, a reusable water bottle can be placed in the compartment and the closure zipper engaged to secure the bottle against falling out or loss, or a bottle sized to frictionally engage the sidewalls of the pocket would be stored/secured as claimed).
Conclusion
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