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 statements submitted on 11/29/2024 and 5/5/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation – 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 10, 13-14 and 18-19 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.
Regarding claims 10, 13 and 18, the phrase “preferably" and “optionally” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 14 and 19 depend from the above claim(s) and are rejected for the above reason as they do not cure the deficiency.
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 DUNHAM
Claim(s) 1, 3-4 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent 135,530 to Dunham.
Regarding claim 1, Dunham discloses a carrier (Fig. 1) for a rolled mat or cylindrical object (the carrier is capable of this intended use), the carrier comprising: a substantially cruciform body (D, center G – Fig. 4) having a spine (D) oriented along a first axis and a belt (G) oriented along a second axis which is substantially perpendicular to the first axis (Fig. 4), the spine and the belt intersecting at a central portion of the body (Fig. 4); the spine comprising a first end and a second end, each end extending from the central portion and being provided with a mounting portion (a, d); the belt comprising a first element (one half of G) and a second element (other half of G), each element extending from the central portion and being provided with fastening means (buckle portions at the ends of G); the belt being deformable into a loop, the loop being closeable by the fastening means, to surround the rolled mat or cylindrical object (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, Dunham discloses wherein the or each mounting portion comprises at least one aperture through the body or at least one loop connected to or formed with the body (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4, Dunham discloses wherein the fastening means is a buckle (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 9, Dunham discloses wherein the fastening means comprises a buckle and the buckle comprises a male buckle part formed on or with one of the first element and the second element, and a female buckle part formed on or with the other of the first element and second element (Fig. 4).
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) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunham in view of US Patent 9,926,953 to Russell.
Regarding claim 5, Dunham fails to disclose a magnetic connection. However, Russell discloses a strap that is secured with a magnet on one end and a ferromagnetic portion on the other end (Figs. 1-2; Col. 25, lines 27-60). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used a magnetic connection for the strap because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent securing element for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, the combination from claim 5 discloses wherein the ferromagnetic portion is flexible (ferromagnetic woven yarns – Russell Col. 25, lines 27-35).
Regarding claim 7, the combination from claim 5 discloses wherein the ferromagnetic portion is provided in the form of a plurality of discrete strips (Russell Figs. 6A-7A) parallel with the first axis (strips would be parallel to the first axis in Dunham).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunham in view of US Patent 6,491,196 to Coler.
Regarding claim 10, the combination from claim 1 fails to disclose adjusting the length of the strap. However, Coler discloses a carrier including a strap portion (14) that has an adjustable length (Col. 3, lines 6-12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used Coler’s strap and buckle in Dunham because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent strap and buckle element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim(s) 12-14, 18 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunham in view of US Published Application 2014/0091119 to Racanati.
Regarding claim 12, Dunham fails to disclose a substantially non-flexible stiffening means. However, Racanati discloses a strap carrier including a spine that comprises a stiffening means and is substantially non-flexible (para. 0012). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included a stiffening means in the spine to provide added stiffness and rigidity to the carrier.
Regarding claim 13, the combination from claim 12 discloses wherein the stiffening means comprises a spine insert provided in the body (Racanati para. 0012), which is optionally metal (Racanati para. 0012) and is provided over substantially an entire length of the spine (in the combination, the stiffening component would extend the entire length of the spine, similar to the entirety of the spine being stiffened in Racanati (para. 0012).
Regarding claim 14, the combination from claim 12 discloses wherein the spine insert is formed of or comprises metal (Racanati para. 0012).
Regarding claim 18, Dunham discloses a strap (H) configured for attachment at each end thereof to the mounting portions of the spine (Fig. 1). Dunham fails to disclose the strap being adjustable and padded. However, Racanati discloses a carrier including a strap (301) that is adjustable (at 601) and padded (at 401). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have made the strap adjustable and padded in Dunham to allow for adapting to various user sizes and to make using the strap more comfortable.
Regarding claim 22, Dunham fails to disclose a mat. However, Racanati discloses a similar strapped carrier that is used to carry a yoga mat (para. 0002). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used Dunham’s carrier to carry a yoga mat because it would allow for carrying the yoga mat hands-free.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunham and Racanati, further in view of US Patent 3,097,774 to Houston.
Regarding claim 15, the combination from claim 12 fails to disclose corrugations. However, Houston discloses a carrier that includes structural corrugations (Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included corrugations in the stiffening means because it would increase stiffness, as taught by Houston (Col. 1, lines 60-65).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunham in view of US Patent 151,929 to Speer.
Regarding claim 16, Dunham fails to disclose wherein the spine is at least partially concave in cross-section in a direction of the second axis. However, Speer discloses a carrier including a spine that is concave (Figs. 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have made the spine concave to better conform to the round carried item.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunham and Racanati, further in view of US Published Application 2016/0227911 to Benzakin.
Regarding claim 19, the combination from claim 18 fails to disclose a pouch on the strap. However, Benzakin discloses a carrying strap wherein the strap is provided with a strap bag or pouch (122) disposed on the length of the strap. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included a pouch on the strap in the combination because it would increase the carrying capacity of the assembly.
Claim(s) 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunham in view of US Patent 6,644,527 to Karenga.
Regarding claim 20, Dunham fails to disclose anti-slip means. However, Karenga discloses a strap carrier including anti-slip means on the strap (Col. 3, lines 33-42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included anti-slip means on the strap to prevent it from slipping off the user’s shoulder.
Regarding claim 21, the combination from claim 20 discloses wherein the anti-slip means comprises a non-slip pad (rubber pad – Col. 3, lines 33-38).
REJECTION BASED ON GILLENWATER
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Design Patent D510,801 to Gillenwater.
Regarding claim 1, Gillenwater discloses a carrier (Fig. 1) for a rolled mat or cylindrical object (the carrier is capable of this intended use), the carrier comprising: a substantially cruciform body (Fig. 1) having a spine (vertical member in Fig. 1) oriented along a first axis and a belt (horizontal member in Fig. 1) oriented along a second axis which is substantially perpendicular to the first axis (Fig. 1), the spine and the belt intersecting at a central portion of the body (Fig. 1); the spine comprising a first end and a second end, each end extending from the central portion and being provided with a mounting portion (Fig. 1 – buckles at ends of vertical member); the belt comprising a first element (Fig. 1 – one half of horizontal belt) and a second element (Fig. 1 – other half of horizontal belt), each element extending from the central portion and being provided with fastening means (Fig. 1 – buckle portions at the ends of horizontal belt elements); the belt being deformable into a loop, the loop being closeable by the fastening means, to surround the rolled mat or cylindrical object (Figs. 2-3).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillenwater in view of US Patent 4,926,501 to Goosen.
Regarding claim 2, Gillenwater fails to disclose a concave junction. However, Goosen discloses a strap attachment including a unitary body that has concave junctions between the horizontal and vertical portions (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have made the spine and belt in Gillenwater unitary and having concave junctions because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent strap element attachment (unitary – concave) for another (stitched – angular) to obtain predictable results. Further, using a unitary design would eliminate the extra step of stitching in the manufacturing process.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillenwater in view of Goosen and US Patent 8,899,644 to Hancey.
Regarding claim 11, the combination from claim 2 discloses a unitary body, but fails to disclose silicone. However, Hancey discloses a strap carrier formed of silicone (Col. 2, lines 47-54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have formed the body from silicone in the combination because the modification only involves choosing from a finite number of predictable materials to use in a strap carrier.
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
Prosecution Insights