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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: The lower coupling device 74 and the upper coupling device 75 are not shown in the drawings.
The drawings are objected to because the specifics of the storage container 13 are unclear in the drawings.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the upper coupling device of the container casing being a twist lock [claim 10] and the joining device [claim 19] must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-21 are 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.
Claim 1 is rendered indefinite by the limitation “the storage bag has a guide device on the outer side of the base plate, over which the storage bag can be pulled out in a pulling-out direction, able to be held in a shelf structure belonging to the storage device”, in lines 7-10, since it is unclear what structure is being defined. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets the limitation as “the storage bag has a guide device on the outer side of the base plate, over which the storage bag can be pulled out in a pulling-out direction, for attachment to a shelf structure”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the top of the bag" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the outer side" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the remainder" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the front stop" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the back stop" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 is rendered indefinite by the phrase “preferably” since it is unclear if the subject matter following the phrase is being positively claimed.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the separation wall" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Squiers et al. (US 2020/0165036).
Regarding claim 1, Squiers discloses a storage device (at 10 in Fig. 1) comprising a storage bag (at 14), which has a bag body with a bag bottom (bottom of 14 in Fig. 2) and a bag circumferential wall (at 26 in Fig. 2) protruding in a vertical direction from the bag bottom (as shown in Fig. 2), which together delimit a storage space (at 30) open at the top of the bag (as shown in Fig. 2), and with a carrying handle (at 38 in Fig, 2) spanning the storage space and attached to the bag body in the region of the top of the bag, and wherein the bag circumferential wall is fastened to the bag bottom, wherein the bag bottom has a base plate (at 22 in Fig. 2) and the storage bag has a guide device (at 78/70) on the outer side of the base plate, over which the storage bag can be pulled out in a pulling-out direction, for attachment to a shelf structure (at 1118 in Fig. 31 – described in [0163]-[0164]).
PNG
media_image1.png
718
938
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Squiers discloses the base plate has a rectangular contour (as shown in Fig. 3), with a front face, a back face arranged opposite the front face and two side faces arranged opposite each other.
Regarding claim 3, Squiers discloses the guide device has two guide units (70 and 70 labeled in Fig. 3) formed on the side faces of the base plate.
Regarding claim 4, Squiers discloses the guide units are formed in a single piece with the remainder of the base plate (as shown in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Squiers discloses he base plate and the guide units consist of a plastic material (See [0120]).
Regarding claim 6, Squiers discloses the guide units each have a back stop (at 46 in Fig. 4) and a front stop (opposite end of 70 from 46 in Fig. 4) capable of attaching the storage bag in a defined rear position and when moved in a pulling-out direction, in a defined front position.
Regarding claim 7, Squiers discloses the guide units each have a recess (at 66 in Fig. 3) capable of accommodating a guide bar formed on the shelf structure.
Regarding claim 8, Squiers discloses the front stop and the back stop are arranged below the recess (as shown in Figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 9, Squiers discloses in addition to the storage bag, at least one storage container (at 18 in Fig. 1 – shown in detail in Fig. 5) having a storage casing (at 114 in Fig. 5), wherein a lower coupling device (at 78) is arranged on the base plate of the storage bag and an upper coupling device (at 158) is arranged in the region of a top side of the container casing of the storage container, wherein these two coupling devices are matched together such that the storage bag stacked on the storage container in a vertical direction (as shown in Fig. 1) is capable of being detachably coupled together in an inseparable manner by interaction of the upper coupling device of the storage container with the lower coupling device of the storage bag (as shown in Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 10, Squiers discloses the lower coupling device on the base plate of the holding bag has a locking projection (at 94) arranged on the front face of the base plate and the upper coupling device on the container casing has a twist lock (element at 142 is a lock element that prevents twisting of the structures relative to one another), which can be moved relative to the storage container for locking in locking engagement with the locking projection.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 11 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Squiers et al. (US 2020/0165036) as applied to claim 9 above, in view of Hassler (US 2015/0367504).
Regarding claim 11, as described above, Squires discloses the claimed invention except for the specifics of the connection between the base plate and the bag body. However, Hassler teaches a storage device (at 20 in Figs. 1 and 3) comprising a bag body (at 22) and a base plate (at 24) positioned at the bottom of the bag body, wherein the device has a clamping element (at 60) attached on the upper side of the base plate, wherein a fastening flap arrangement (at 46) in a bending flexible material protruding inwards on the bag wall is fixedly clamped between the base plate and the clamping element (as shown in Fig. 3), for the purpose of allowing the base plate to be removable for removably holding a kneeling pad (23) beneath the bag body for use by the user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Squires with clamping elements/flap arrangement as taught by Hassler in order to facilitate storage of a kneeling cushion for use by the user, if desired.
Regarding claim 13, Hassler teaches the fastening flaps arrangement has several a plurality of fastening flaps (46) formed separately from each other.
Regarding claim 14, Hassler teaches the clamping element is formed as a clamping plate.
Regarding claim 15, Hassler teaches the bag bottom has a fastening device (at 44/42) for reciprocal tensioning of the base plate with the clamping element.
Regarding claim 16, Squires discloses the bag circumferential wall forms a rectangular contour and is formed from two side walls arranged opposite each other, a front wall and a back wall (as shown in Fig 2).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Squiers et al. (US 2020/0165036) as applied to claim 9 above, in view of Godshaw et al. (US 7,780,051).
Regarding claim 12, as described above, Squires discloses the claimed invention except for the specific material of the bag circumferential wall. However, Godshaw teaches it is well known in the art to form walls of a tool storage container from a canvas material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bag walls of Squires to be formed from a canvas material as taught by Godshaw in order to have increased durability. Furthermore, 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.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Squiers et al. (US 2020/0165036) in view of Hassler (US 2015/0367504), as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Crawford et al. (US 2011/0147428).
Regarding claims 17-20, as described above, Squires-Hassler discloses the claimed invention except for the holding elements. However, Crawford teaches a tool storage device (See Fig. 1) comprising a storage bag (at 106 in Fig. 1) including a plurality of holding elements (at 102/104) provided on an inner surface of the storage bag, wherein the holding elements has holding sections in the form of pockets (as shown in Fig. 1), wherein the holding elements each has a plate-shaped base section (at 108 in Fig. 1) for detachably fastening by a reversible quick-release joining device (Velcro) to the inner surface of the bag, for the purpose of allowing for flexible tool retainers for holding tools for various jobs by the user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the storage bag of Squires-Hassler with a plurality of holding elements as taught by Crawford in order to allow for various tools to be conveniently held.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Squiers et al. (US 2020/0165036) in view of Hassler (US 2015/0367504) and Crawford et al. (US 2011/0147428), as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Brouard (US 2004/0065573).
Regarding claim 21, as described above, Squires-Hassler-Crawford discloses the claimed invention except for the carrying strap. However, Brouard teaches a storage bag (See Fig. 1) comprising a carrying handle (at 40) and a carrying strap (shoulder strap at 82) fastened to the bag circumferential wall for the purpose of allowing the storage bag to be carried by a user’s shoulder. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the storage bag of Squires-Hassler-Crawford with a carrying strap as taught by Brouard in order to allow for the bag to be conveniently carried by the shoulder of a user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN A REYNOLDS whose telephone number is (571)272-9959. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571) 272-4561. 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.
/STEVEN A. REYNOLDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights