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 .
This Office Action acknowledges the applicant’s preliminary amendment filed on 4/22/2026. Claims 1-17 are pending in the application. Claims 18-20 are cancelled.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 4/22/2026 is acknowledged.
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 guide panel recited in claim 12, 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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Levine et al. US 4,542,839.
With regards to claim 1, Levine disclose a tool bag comprising: a container body 1 including one or more woven panels 5/6/7/8/9 (Col 3:16-22 and 4:32), a bottom rigid member 23/24/25, and a rigid wall 20 hingedly connected to the bottom rigid member; a base panel 29/30 riveted on the rigid wall; and one or more protrusions (structure 40) extending from the base panel.
The one or more protrusions of Levine are capable of being configured to engage with one or more holder slots on a ladder top, depending on the ladder top to be used, since such a limitation is considered an intended use.
With regards to claim 2, Levine disclose the one or more protrusions 40 include a cylindrical member (at 46/47) and an extending member (at 42), the extending member connecting the cylindrical member to the base pane.
With regards to claim 5, Levine disclose one or more ribs 32 extending from the base panel.
With regards to claim 6, the one or more ribs 32 of Levine are capable of being configured to rest against an angled surface of a ladder top depending a ladder to be used. Since such a limitation is considered an intended use.
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.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levine et al. US 4,542,839.
With regards to claim 3, Levine discloses the claimed invention (one or more protrusions) as stated above but it does not specifically disclose the extending member is narrower than the cylindrical member.
To modify the extending member to be narrower than the cylindrical member as claimed would entail a mere change in shape of extending member and yield only predictable results. "[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person's skill." KSR Int 'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1396 (2007). A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. MPEP 2144.04 (IV(A))
With regards to claim 4, Levine discloses the claimed invention (one or more protrusions) as stated above but it does not specifically disclose the one or more protrusions and the base panel are made of molded copolymer polypropylene.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the one or more protrusions and the base panel made of molded copolymer polypropylene, 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. MPEP 2144.07
With regards to claim 7, Levine discloses the claimed invention (one or more ribs) as stated above but it does not specifically disclose an extending length of a top end of the one or more ribs is greater than an extending length of a bottom end of the one or more ribs.
To modify the ribs to extend in length of a top end of the one or more ribs is greater than an extending length of a bottom end of the one or more ribs and yield only predictable results. "[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person's skill." KSR Int 'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1396 (2007). A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. MPEP 2144.04 (IV(A))
With regards to claim 8, Levine discloses the claimed invention (one or more ribs) as stated above but it does not specifically disclose an extending length of the one or more ribs is continuously reduced from a top end to a bottom end.
To modify the ribs an extending length of the one or more ribs is continuously reduced from a top end to a bottom end and yield only predictable results. "[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person's skill." KSR Int 'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1396 (2007). A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. MPEP 2144.04 (IV(A))
With regards to claim 9, Levine discloses the claimed invention (the bottom ridge member) as stated above but it does not specifically disclose the bottom rigid member is a molded plastic including copolymer polypropylene and polyethylene.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the bottom rigid member be a molded plastic including copolymer polypropylene and polyethylene, 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. MPEP 2144.07
Claim(s) 10-14, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGuire et al. US 2023/0109765 A1 in view of Klamm US 6,443,274, B1.
With regards to claim 10, McGuire (Fig. 1-19)discloses a collapsible container bag 10 comprising: a container body including one or more woven panels (fabric panels), a bottom rigid member 14, and a rigid wall 86 hingedly connected to the bottom rigid member, wherein the bottom rigid member (14; plate and lips described in para. 0101 and Figs. 10-15) including a bottom plate and a lip extending around a perimeter of the bottom plate, the lip having a front lip, a rear lip opposite the front lip, a first side lip, and a second side lip opposite the first side lip; and an engagement mechanism 182abc attached to the rigid wall; wherein the rigid wall is hingedly connected (at 42) to the rear lip of the bottom rigid member, and the one or more woven panels include a front woven panel (94 shown in Fig. 1) hingedly (at 42) connected to the front lip of the bottom rigid member 14.
McGuire does not specifically disclose an interior securement panel and a fabric portion encompassing the interior securement panel.
However, Klamm teaches that it was known in the art to have a container bag have an interior securement panel 34 and a fabric portion (encased in fabric; Col 2:43-56) encompassing the interior securement panel.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the container bag in McGuire by providing interior securement panel as taught by Klamm for the purposes of providing comfort for a user or to protect articles inside the bag.
With regards to claim 11, McGuire discloses the front woven panel 94 is horizontally collapsible. (Fig. 17, Para. 0056; luggage collapsible in any shape or size)
With regards to claim 12, McGuire discloses the front woven panel 94 includes a guide panel 90, and the front woven panel configured to collapse along an edge of the guide panel. (Fig. 17)
With regards to claim 13, McGuire Fig. 1-19 disclosed the claimed invention but it does not specifically disclose a fastener configured to bind a top end of the rigid wall and a top end of the front woven panel in a closed configuration.
However, an alternative embodiment of McGuire Fig. 30, discloses a container bag having a fastener 371/373/375/377 configured to bind a top end of the rigid wall and a top end of the front woven panel in a closed configuration.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the container bag in McGuire by providing a fastener as taught by Klamm (Fig. 30 bag 300) for the purposes of keeping the luggage in the collapsed position.
With regards to claim 14, McGuire discloses the one or more woven panels 22, 26, 30, 34 further includes a second woven panel connected to the first side lip of the bottom rigid member and a third woven panel connected to the second side lip of the bottom rigid member, wherein the second woven panel and the third woven panel are collapsible. (shown in Fig. 16 and 17 and described in para. 0058)
With regards to claim 16, McGuire discloses the lip (14; lips described in para. 0101 and shown Figs. 10-15) has a ridge along an outer surface thereof.
With regards to claim 17, McGuire discloses the rigid wall 86 is hingedly connected (at 42) to the rear lip of the bottom rigid member 14 via a seam including stitching fixing the rigid wall to the rear lip of the bottom rigid member. (shown in Fig. 16 and 17 and described in para. 0058)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENINE SPICER whose telephone number is (313)446-4924. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm, Monday-Thursday.
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, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached at (571) 270-5531. 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.
/JENINE SPICER/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights