DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they were submitted as color photographs and are not legible as scanned into the file. As such, they fail to show numerous claimed features of the backpack, shoulder strap, user facing panel etc. as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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 § 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) 1-4, 15, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bentham et al. (US 7,455,567) in view of Official Notice.
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 15 Bentham teaches the invention substantially as claimed, including: at least one shoulder strap 26 coupled to the garment 10, the at least one shoulder strap 26 including a non-elastic first strap portion 20 (col. 2 lines 51-55 and col. 3 lines 47-50) coupled to an elastic second strap portion 14, wherein a Poisson’s ratio of the second strap portion is less than a Poisson’s ratio of the first strap portion (fabric vs auxetic foam, col. 2 lines 9-16). Bentham does not disclose the shoulder strap being part of a backpack with a bag portion. Examiner takes Official Notice that backpacks with a bag portion are well known load-bearing articles with shoulder straps that bear the weight of items carried in the bag portion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to apply the auxetic foam layer/pad of Bentham to a shoulder strap of a backpack to improve comfort, even load distribution, and reduced “digging in” of the strap. Furthermore, simple substitution of a known element (auxetic padding) into a similar device (load-bearing shoulder strap) would yield predictable results (KSR v. Teleflex).
Regarding claims 3 and 19, Bentham does not specifically disclose the second strap portion 14 being near auxetic. However, Bentham also discloses that conventional foam layers are known to be used as padding and may be near auxetic (col. 3 lines 23-24). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use only the convention foam padding order to make the device less expensive and easier to manufacture.
Regarding claims 4 and 20, strap portion 14 would define a shoulder pad as claimed.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bentham in view of Lewine (US 2,936,603).
Regarding claim 7, Bentham does not disclose a corrugated fabric and elastic cords as claimed. However, Lewine teaches an alternate means of creating an elastic portion of fabric including a corrugated length of fabric 22/23 with a plurality of elastic cords 27 woven into the fabric. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to make the elastic portion of Bentham from a corrugated fabric with elastic cords woven therein to provide a known alternative material that is old and known in the art.
Claim(s) 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eberle (US 7,735,701) in view of Bentham et al. (US 7,455,567).
Regarding claims 8, 9, 11, Eberle discloses a backpack substantially as claimed, including a bag portion 1 with a plurality of panels (col. 4 line 55-61), the plurality of panels including a non-elastic first panel (any of panel 3, the top and bottom panels), a padded section panel (see back panel and col. 4 line 60), and shoulder straps 4. Eberle does not disclose anything about the Poisson ratios of the panels or what type of padding is used for the back panel. Bentham teaches a related body worn garment 10 having at least one shoulder strap 26 coupled to the garment 10, and having an elastic padding portion 14 attached to non-elastic portion 20 (col. 2 lines 51-55 and col. 3 lines 47-50), wherein a Poisson’s ratio of the elastic portion 14 is less than a Poisson’s ratio of the non-elastic strap portion 20 (fabric vs auxetic foam, col. 2 lines 9-16). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to apply the auxetic foam layer/pad of Bentham to the back panel of the backpack to improve comfort and load distribution of the bag portion against the user. Furthermore, simple substitution of a known element (auxetic padding) into a similar device (load-bearing bag panel) would yield predictable results (KSR v. Teleflex).
Regarding claim 10, modified Eberle does not specifically disclose the second elastic panel 14 being near auxetic. However, Bentham also discloses that conventional foam layers are known to be used as padding and may be near auxetic (col. 3 lines 23-24). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use only the convention foam padding order to make the device less expensive and easier to manufacture.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eberle in view of Bentham, as applied to claim 8, and in further view of Lewine (US 2,936,603).
Regarding claim 14, modified Eberle does not disclose a corrugated fabric and elastic cords as claimed. However, Lewine teaches an alternate means of creating an elastic portion of fabric including a corrugated length of fabric 22/23 with a plurality of elastic cords 27 woven into the fabric. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to make the elastic portion of Bentham from a corrugated fabric with elastic cords woven therein to provide a known alternative material that is old and known in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 12-13, 16-17 are 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 COREY NELSON SKURDAL whose telephone number is (571)272-9588. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-4pm 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.
/COREY N SKURDAL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734