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 .
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 7-10 and 12-19 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 7 recites the limitation "the main portion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear exactly what is intended to be the main portion. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that the main portion is intended to be the main body.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the main member" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear exactly what is intended to be the main member. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that the main member is intended to be the main body.
Claims 8-10 and 13-19 are rejected as depending from claim 7 or 12 and therefore incorporating the indefinite scope.
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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peng (CN 111358149 A).
Regarding claim 12, Peng discloses a backpack (Fig. 1) comprising: a main body including a front side and a rear side (noting sides facing out of the page, and into the page); a shoulder strap (3) extending from a first fixed end at an upper portion of the rear side to a second free end, and a slip lock member (2) coupled with the shoulder strap, wherein the slip lock member includes a front side facing away from the main body, a rear side facing toward the main member (noting sides of 2 pacing away and into the page), and a window (noting the portion through which 1 is visible) with a crossbar extending across the window that separates the window into a first slot and a second slot, and a bulk strap (4) including a plurality of indicia markings arranged along a portion of the bulk strap, wherein the bulk strap extends from behind the shoulder strap and through the first slot, over the crossbar and through the second slot of the slip lock member of the shoulder strap (Fig. 1) such that a portion of the bulk strap including a single indicia marking (noting indicia 7, as shown in Fig. 1) of the plurality of indicia markings is disposed over the crossbar and the single indicia marking is visible at the window when the bulk strap is moved to different positions in relation to the slip lock member (Abstract).
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, 4-6, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng (CN 111358149 A) in view of KR 20170000416 U.
Regarding claim 2, Peng discloses a backpack comprising: a main body (Fig. 1) including a front side and a rear side (noting a side facing out of the page, and the other side facing into the page), a shoulder strap (3) extending from a first fixed end at an upper portion of the rear side to a second free end; and a shoulder strap structure coupled with the shoulder strap and comprising a slip lock member (2) disposed along a portion of the shoulder strap (noting it is attached near a distal end thereof), wherein the slip lock member includes a first portion, the first portion including a window with a crossbar extending across the window that separates the window into a first slot and a second slot such that the crossbar and each of the first slot and the second slot are disposed within the first portion (noting the area through which scale symbol 1 is viewable).
Peng does not specifically disclose a first flat portion extending to a second flat portion and the second flat portion extending at an angle of less than 45° outward and away from the first flat portion.
KR 20170000416 U demonstrates a slip lock including a first flat portion (extending from portions 200 to 500) extending to a second flat portion (noting the portion extending from 500 to the lower distal end as shown in Figs. 3(a) and 3(b)) and the second flat portion extending at an angle of less than 45° outward and away from the first flat portion (noting the angle of the first flat portion extends generally along a vertical axis, and the angle of the second flat portion is angled less than 45 degrees from the vertical axis).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Peng and use the teaching of KR 20170000416 U and shape the device such that a crossbar and window is located in a first flat portion and including a second flat portion extending at an angle of less than 45 degrees because such a change would allow the device to present a portion that is easier for a user to grab in order to adjust the strap within the buckle, or to adjust how the buckle interacts with the strap i.e. how hard or easy it is for the strap to be adjusted relative to the buckle.
Regarding claim 4, modified Peng demonstrates a bulk strap (4) that extends from behind the shoulder strap and through the first slot, over the crossbar and through the second slot of the slip lock member of the shoulder strap (Fig. 1); wherein the bulk strap includes a plurality of markings arranged along a portion of the bulk strap (Fig. 1), and the window of the slip lock member exposes a portion of the bulk strap that extends through the first slot (noting the strap visible at 1), over the crossbar and through the second slot of the slip lock member such that a single marking (noting 7, as demonstrated in Fig. 1) of the plurality of markings is visible at the window when the bulk strap of the shoulder strap is moved to different positions in relation to the slip lock member.
Regarding claim 5, modified Peng discloses the bulk strap is adjustable to adjust an alignment of the backpack in relation to shoulders of a user when the backpack is worn by the user (Abstract of the translation).
Regarding claim 6, modified Peng discloses the markings comprise a series of sequential numbers spaced from each other along the length dimension of each bulk strap (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, modified Peng discloses a method of leveling a backpack in relation to shoulders of a user wearing the backpack (Abstract), the backpack comprising a main body (Fig. 1) and a pair of shoulder straps (3), the main body including a front side and a rear side (noting sides facing outward and into the page, Fig. 1), the method comprising: facilitating placement of each shoulder strap over a corresponding shoulder of the user (Abstract), each shoulder strap extending from a first fixed end at an upper portion of the rear side to a second free end (Fig. 1); and adjusting a shoulder strap leveling structure coupled with each of the shoulder straps, the shoulder strap leveling structure comprising a first bulk strap (4) and a corresponding first slip lock member (2) secured at a portion of one of the shoulder straps and a second bulk strap and a corresponding second slip lock member secured at a portion of the other of the shoulder straps (Fig. 1), wherein the adjusting comprises: adjusting the first bulk strap in relation to the first slip lock member such that a free end of the first bulk strap extending beyond the first slip lock member changes with the adjusting (Abstract), and adjusting the second bulk strap in relation to the second slip lock member such that a free end of the second bulk strap extending beyond the second slip lock member changes with the adjusting (Abstract, Fig. 1), wherein: each of the first and second bulk straps includes a plurality of markings arranged along a length dimension of the bulk strap (Fig. 1); each of the first and second slip lock members includes a first portion, the first flat portion including a window with a crossbar extending across the window that separates the window (noting the viewable portion 1) into a first slot and a second slot such that the crossbar and each of the first slot and the second slot are disposed within the first portion, and each of the first bulk strap and the second bulk strap is adjusted with the first slip lock member or the second slip lock member by moving a portion of the first bulk strap or the second bulk strap through the first slot, over the crossbar and through the second slot of the first slip lock member or the second slip lock member such that a single marking of the first bulk strap visible at the window (noting the indicia 7, as demonstrated in Fig. 1) of the first slip lock member is a same single marking of the second bulk strap visible at the window of the second slip lock member.
Peng does not specifically disclose a first flat portion extending to a second flat portion and the second flat portion extending at an angle of less than 45° outward and away from the first flat portion.
KR 20170000416 U demonstrates a slip lock including a first flat portion (extending from portions 200 to 500) extending to a second flat portion (noting the portion extending from 500 to the lower distal end as shown in Figs. 3(a) and 3(b)) and the second flat portion extending at an angle of less than 45° outward and away from the first flat portion (noting the angle of the first flat portion extends generally along a vertical axis, and the angle of the second flat portion is angled less than 45 degrees from the vertical axis).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Peng and use the teaching of KR 20170000416 U and shape the device such that a crossbar and window is located in a first flat portion and including a second flat portion extending at an angle of less than 45 degrees because such a change would allow the device to present a portion that is easier for a user to grab in order to adjust the strap within the buckle, or to adjust how the buckle interacts with the strap i.e. how hard or easy it is for the strap to be adjusted relative to the buckle.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng (CN 111358149 A) in view of KR 20170000416 U as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Godshaw et al. (US 2002/0145018 A1)(Godshaw).
Regarding claim 7, Peng discloses the bulk strap includes a first end that extends through the first slot, over the crossbar and through the second slot of the slip lock member, but does not specifically disclose an anchor pad extending from the rear side and/or another side of the main portion, or the second end that secures to the anchor pad.
Godshaw teaches the ability to have a backpack including shoulder straps having lower adjustable strap portions, and a first anchor pad (34) extending from the rear side at or near a first lengthwise side edge of the backpack and a second anchor pad (36) extending from the rear side at or near a second lengthwise side edge of the backpack (Fig. 1), and each lower adjustable strap portion secures to one of the first and second anchor pads at the first free end of the bulk strap (Fig. 1, noting fastener 70/72).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Peng and include similar anchor pads similar to that of Godshaw to which the bulk straps are attached because such a change would provide additional support when the backpack is worn on a person as suggested by Godshaw.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng (CN 111358149 A) in view of Funo (CN 1903092 A).
Regarding claim 13, Peng does not specifically disclose the crossbar includes a pair of walls that extend toward the main member and taper toward each other to define an edge of the crossbar.
Funo demonstrates a similar belt adjuster including crossbar (31) includes a pair of walls that extend toward the main member (Fig. 6, noting the walls tapering to a point facing toward the right) and taper toward each other to define an edge of the crossbar (Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Peng and configure the crossbar over which the strap extends similar to that of Funo because such a change would help control the interaction between the crossbar and the rest of the clip relative to the bulk strap thereby helping to control the force it takes to adjust the buckle relative to the strap.
Regarding claim 14, to the degree that it is unclear if Peng demonstrates the slip lock member further includes a second crossbar disposed on the rear side of the slip lock member, the second crossbar providing a coupling engagement with a portion of the shoulder strap.
Funo further demonstrates a similar belt adjuster that includes a second crossbar (11) disposed on the rear side of the slip lock member (noting a side toward the right as shown in Fig. 6), the second crossbar providing a coupling engagement with a portion of the shoulder strap.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Peng and include a second crossbar located at a rear side of the slip lock because such a change would require choosing a well-known attachment structure between a shoulder strap and slip lock and would have yielded predictable results.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng (CN 111358149 A) in view of Bakker et al. (US 4,171,555 A)(Bakker).
Regarding claim 15, Peng does not specifically disclose the slip lock member further includes a plurality of grooves disposed on the rear side of the slip lock member and extending in a lengthwise dimension of the slip lock member.
Bakker discloses a similar slip lock including a plurality of grooves (60) disposed on a rear side of the slip lock member and extending in a lengthwise dimension of the slip lock member to prevent bunching.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Peng and use the teaching of Bakker and include a plurality of grooves on a rear side of the slip lock member in a location that in use is proximal to the surface of the bulk strap in order to prevent bunching as suggested by Bakker.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng (CN 111358149 A) in view of KR 20170000416 U.
Regarding claim 16, Peng does not specifically disclose a first flat portion extending to a second flat portion and the second flat portion extending at an angle.
KR 20170000416 U demonstrates a slip lock including a first flat portion (extending from portions 200 to 500) extending to a second flat portion (noting the portion extending from 500 to the lower distal end as shown in Figs. 3(a) and 3(b)) and the second flat portion extending at an angle outward and away from the first flat portion (noting the angle of the first flat portion extends generally along a vertical axis, and the angle of the second flat portion is angled less than 45 degrees from the vertical axis).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Peng and use the teaching of KR 20170000416 U and shape the device such that a crossbar and window is located in a first flat portion and including a second flat portion extending at an angle of less than 45 degrees because such a change would allow the device to present a portion that is easier for a user to grab in order to adjust the strap within the buckle, or to adjust how the buckle interacts with the strap i.e. how hard or easy it is for the strap to be adjusted relative to the buckle.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng (CN 111358149 A) in view of KR 20170000416 U as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Bakker et al. (US 4,171,555 A)(Bakker).
Regarding claim 17, modified Peng demonstrates the first portion includes the window and the crossbar but does not specifically disclose the second portion includes a plurality of grooves disposed on the rear side of the slip lock member and extending in a lengthwise dimension of the slip lock member.
Bakker discloses a similar slip lock including a plurality of grooves (60) disposed on a rear side of the slip lock member on a distal portion of the buckle and extending in a lengthwise dimension of the slip lock member to prevent bunching.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Peng and use the teaching of Bakker and include a plurality of grooves on a rear side of the slip lock member in a location that in use is proximal to the surface of the bulk strap in order to prevent bunching as suggested by Bakker.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-4 12, 16 and 18-19 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,102,214 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,102,214 B2 teaches all of the limitations of claims 2-4 12, 16 and 18-19 of the present application.
Claims 5-10 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,102,214 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 2-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,102,214 B2 teaches all of the limitations of claims 5-10 of the present application.
Claim 11 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,102,214 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,102,214 B2 teaches all of the limitations of 11 of the present application.
Claim 13-14 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,102,214 B2 in view of Funo (CN 1903092 A).
Regarding claim 13, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,102,214 B2 does not specifically disclose the crossbar includes a pair of walls that extend toward the main member and taper toward each other to define an edge of the crossbar.
Funo demonstrates a similar belt adjuster including crossbar (31) includes a pair of walls that extend toward the main member (Fig. 6, noting the walls tapering to a point facing toward the right) and taper toward each other to define an edge of the crossbar (Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,102,214 B2 and configure the crossbar over which the strap extends similar to that of Funo because such a change would help control the interaction between the crossbar and the rest of the clip relative to the bulk strap thereby helping to control the force it takes to adjust the buckle relative to the strap.
Regarding claim 14, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,102,214 B2 does not specifically disclose the slip lock member further includes a second crossbar disposed on the rear side of the slip lock member, the second crossbar providing a coupling engagement with a portion of the shoulder strap.
Funo further demonstrates a similar belt adjuster that includes a second crossbar (11) disposed on the rear side of the slip lock member (noting a side toward the right as shown in Fig. 6), the second crossbar providing a coupling engagement with a portion of the shoulder strap.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,102,214 B2 and include a second crossbar located at a rear side of the slip lock because such a change would require choosing a well-known attachment structure between a shoulder strap and slip lock and would have yielded predictable results.
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,102,214 B2 in view of Bakker et al. (US 4,171,555 A)(Bakker).
Regarding claim 15, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,102,214 B2 does not specifically disclose the slip lock member further includes a plurality of grooves disposed on the rear side of the slip lock member and extending in a lengthwise dimension of the slip lock member.
Bakker discloses a similar slip lock including a plurality of grooves (60) disposed on a rear side of the slip lock member and extending in a lengthwise dimension of the slip lock member to prevent bunching.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,102,214 B2 and use the teaching of Bakker and include a plurality of grooves on a rear side of the slip lock member in a location that in use is proximal to the surface of the bulk strap in order to prevent bunching as suggested by Bakker.
Regarding claim 17, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,102,214 B2 does not specifically disclose the second portion includes a plurality of grooves disposed on the rear side of the slip lock member and extending in a lengthwise dimension of the slip lock member.
Bakker discloses a similar slip lock including a plurality of grooves (60) disposed on a rear side of the slip lock member on a distal portion of the buckle and extending in a lengthwise dimension of the slip lock member to prevent bunching.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,102,214 B2 and use the teaching of Bakker and include a plurality of grooves on a rear side of the slip lock member in a location that in use is proximal to the surface of the bulk strap in order to prevent bunching as suggested by Bakker.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW T THEIS whose telephone number is 571-270-5700. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, 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.
/M.T.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3734
/NATHAN J NEWHOUSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights