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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 6/18/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Chinese application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rasmussen (US 2013/0140120).
Rasmussen discloses a detachable bag capable of use at a school comprising a bracket (see Figs. 13A, 13B), a tie rod arranged on the bracket (152), walking wheels arranged on the bracket (151s), and a bag body (see Figs. 1, 2, 14), characterized in that a first zipper tape is arranged at the lower part of the bag body, and a second zipper tape matched with the first zipper tape is arranged on the bracket (82a, 82b); the detachable schoolbag further comprises a slider for realizing the combination or separation of the first zipper tape and the second zipper tape, which is arranged on the first zipper tape or the second zipper tape (unnumbered, see Figs. 13A, 13B).
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasmussen (US 2013/0140120) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Davis et al. (US 9944028, hereinafter ‘Davis’).
Rasmussen discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the zippers including woven tape as claimed.
However, Davis detaches constructing a zipper tape comprising a first woven tape and first zipper teeth arranged on the first woven tape; the second zipper tape comprises a second woven tape and second zipper teeth arranged on the second woven tape; the first zipper teeth and the second zipper teeth are cooperatively arranged (col. 1, ll. 58 – col. 2, ll. 20) as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use woven tape to construct the zippers as taught by Davis, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Rasmussen as modified above results in a device wherein the first woven tape is arranged in the horizontal direction and fixed on the bag body; the second woven tape is arranged in the horizontal direction and fixed on the bracket.
Claim(s) 3-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasmussen (US 2013/0140120) in view of Davis et al. (US 9944028, hereinafter ‘Davis’) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kiely (US 6026547).
Rasmussen as modified above discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the plug block/socket as claimed.
However, Kiely teach providing a detachable zipper with a plug block arranged at one end of the first woven tape; a socket matched with the plug block arranged on the second woven tape; the slider is arranged on the second zipper teeth (see Fig. 1A) as claimed.
Because Rasmussen as modified above and Kiely both zipper structures, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the plug block/socket structure taught by Kiely for the generic zipper structure taught by Rasmussen as modified above to achieve the predictable result of allowing the zipper halves to mate.
Rasmussen as modified above further results in a device wherein the bracket is pallet shaped, and one side of the bracket forms an upward extending limit flange, which is U-shaped, a mounting seat is formed on the bracket corresponding to the opening position of the limit flange, and the pull rod is set on the mounting seat (see Rasumssen Figs. 13A, 13B); the second woven tape extends from one end of the length direction of the limit flange to the other end (see Rasumssen Figs. 13A, 13B).
Regarding claim 6, Rasmussen as modified above discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the plastic material as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the zipper out of plastic material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Rasmussen as modified above further results in a device wherein the second woven tape is arranged at the lower part of the side of the bag body (Rasmussen para 0033); the distance between the second woven tape and the lower end surface of the bag body corresponds to the distance between the first woven tape and the upper end surface of the bracket and the second woven tape (when assembled); the tie rod is a telescopic tie rod (see Rasmussen Figs. 13A, 13B); the walking wheels are multiple and are arranged at the lower part of the bracket (see Rasmussen Figs. 13A, 13B).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER N. HELVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1423. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-7pm EST.
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.
/PETER N HELVEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
January 9, 2026