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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-12 and 21-23 in the reply filed on 6/22/26 is acknowledged.
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 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.
With Respect to Claims 1-3
The preamble recites that it is for a wipe accessory for attachment to a pair of wipes, the wipe accessory comprising a pouch, but the body of the claim also recites “the pouch for receiving a wipe accessory”. As such, it is unclear what constitutes the structure claimed, noting that the “wipe accessory” received in the pouch is disclosed as a spray bottle, but the structure attached to the pack of wipes is a pouch for holding a spray bottle. It is noted that the reference in the body of the claim to “a wipe accessory” does not refer back to the “wipe accessory” of the preamble, and so these appear to be two different parts being referred to as a “wipe accessory”, which is what leads to the confusion. Similar issues arise with respect to claims 2-3, noting that they refer to “the wipe accessory” in the body of the claim.
For the purposes of Examination on the merits, Examiner takes the preamble recitation to indicate that the claim is for a wipe accessory holder (or some similar terminology) as that appears to be the intent based upon Examiner’s best understanding of the invention.
With Respect to Claims 4-12 and 21-23
These claims are rejected as they depend from a rejected claim and so incorporate its indefinite scope.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #6,000,103 to Paice (Paice) in view of U.S. Patent Publication #2008/0282508 to Chang (Chang).
With Respect to Claim 1
Paice discloses a wipe accessory for attachment to a pack of wipes, the wipe accessory comprising: a pouch (20) extending between an open top end (21) and a closed bottom end (16), the pouch for receiving a wipe accessory (capable of this use, it is noted that a pen or pencil is a wipe accessory to the extent claimed as an appropriate wipe can be used to erase pen or pencil marks); and a second static attachment mechanism (50 or 56-58) connected to the open top end of the pouch (either directly or via 50 and other related structures), the second static attachment mechanism for attaching the pouch to a bag or backpack (capable of this use); but does not disclose a first stretchable attachment mechanism having a first end connected to the open top end and a second end connected to the closed bottom end of the pouch, the first stretchable attachment mechanism for attaching the pouch to the pack of wipes.
However, Chang discloses a similar pen/pencil/object holder (see e.g. FIG. 2) and a first stretchable attachment mechanism (30) having a first end connected to the open top end and a second end connected to the bottom end of the pouch (see, e.g. FIG. 2 noting loops 22 mounted at the top end bottom ends of the pouch formed by 21), the first stretchable attachment mechanism for attaching the pouch to an article (a glove is disclosed but is purely exemplary and non-limiting) and capable of attaching the pouch to the pack of wipes (capable of this use with an appropriate pack of wipes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Chang, to add a first stretchable attachment mechanism as taught by Chang/as claimed to the holder of Paice, in order to allow for attachment of an article to that location to increase the holding capacity and utility of the holder.
With Respect to Claim 2
The wipe accessory of claim 1, further comprising the wipe accessory (the pen or pencil is a wipe accessory to the extent claimed).
With Respect to Claim 3
The wipe accessory of claim 1, wherein the first stretchable attachment mechanism comprises: an elastic draw string extending between the first end and the second end; and a lock (40) disposed along the elastic draw string, the lock for tightening the elastic draw string about the pack of wipes, thereby securing the wipe accessory to the pack of baby wipes (inasmuch as it is capable of this use).
With Respect to Claim 5
The wipe accessory of claim 3, wherein the lock comprises a cord lock.
With Respect to Claim 6
The wipe accessory of claim 1, wherein the second static attachment mechanism comprises a clip (56-58) and a tether (52, 54, 50) for attaching the clip to the open top end of the pouch (FIG. 4).
With Respect to Claim 7
The wipe accessory of claim 6, wherein the clip comprises a trigger clip (noting 57 is a trigger).
With Respect to Claim 8
The wipe accessory of claim 6, wherein the clip comprises a carabiner (it is a carabiner to the extent broadly claimed).
With Respect to Claim 9
The wipe accessory of claim 6, wherein the clip comprises a swivel clip (it is disclosed as a swivel clasp and as shown is a clip and so it can also be referred to as a swivel clip).
With Respect to Claim 21
The wipe accessory of claim 1, wherein the pouch defines an interior for receiving the wipe accessory, the interior extending between the open top end and the closed bottom end (capable of this use which is also the intended use, noting that the interior receives the body of the pens/pencils/etc, and/or capable of receiving the entirety of an appropriate wipes accessory e.g. an appropriately sized pencil).
With Respect to Claim 22
The wipe accessory of claim 21, wherein the wipe accessory is slidably receivable within the interior (capable of this use which is also the intended use, noting the pens/pencils are slid into the open end for storage).
With Respect to Claim 23
The wipe accessory of claim 3, wherein the lock tightens the elastic draw string about the pack of wipes (capable of this use, noting that tightening the draw string around a held object is the purpose of the lock), allowing for a single wipe to be pulled from the pack of wipes at a time (capable of this use with an appropriate pack of wipes).
Claims 8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #6,000,103 to Paice (Paice) in view of U.S. Patent Publication #2008/0282508 to Chang (Chang) as applied to claim 1 or 6 above, and further in view of official notice.
With Respect to Claim 8
As an alternative to the rejection of claim 8 above, although Examiner maintains that the clasp shown is a carabiner within the broadest reasonable interpretation of that term, Paice discloses that the clasp shown is only one non-limiting example of attachment mechanism that could be used, and Examiner takes official notice that it is known in the art to use carabiners to attach similar tethers to belts/belt loops/and the like, and so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to use a carabiner as the clasp/attachment mechanism, for the art known benefits of carabiners in general or of a particular carabiner, as a mere selection of an art appropriate attachment mechanism/clasp to use, and/or at most a mere substitution of one art known fastener for another.
With Respect to Claim 10
The wipe accessory of claim 6, and does not disclose details of the lanyard and so does not detail a particular type or material of lanyard other than the exemplary cord shown; but does not disclose wherein the tether comprises a grosgrain ribbon.
However, Examiner takes official notice that grosgrain ribbon is an art known strap like material and is suitable to use for a lanyard.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use grosgrain ribbon for the lanyard, for the art known benefits of grosgrain ribbon (e.g. aesthetic appeal, durability), as a mere selection of an art appropriate material to use, and/or as 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.
With Respect to Claim 11
The wipe accessory of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the pouch comprises neoprene.
However, Examiner takes official notice that neoprene is an art known material and suitable to use for making similar pockets.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, to form the pouch out of neoprene, for the art known benefits of neoprene (e.g. waterproof, flexible), as a mere selection of an art appropriate material to use, and/or as 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.
With Respect to Claim 12
The wipe accessory of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the pouch comprises neoprene and polyester.
However, Examiner takes official notice that neoprene and polyester are art known materials and suitable to use for making similar pockets.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, to form the pouch out of neoprene and polyester, for the art known benefits of neoprene (e.g. waterproof, flexible) and polyester, as a mere selection of an art appropriate material to use, and/or as 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Chang discloses that the elastic drawstring is attached via passing through loops (22) rather than that first and second ends of the elastic drawstring are sewn (it is noted that even if the loops 22 were sewn, this does not constitute the elastic draw string itself being sewn), and a sewn attachment would interfere with the length adjustment of the entire loop via the cord lock (40) and so it would not have been obvious to modify the structure to attach the elastic drawstring as claimed; U.S. Patent #11,571,052 discloses attaching a similar elastic structure to a pouch, but it is sewn to only the closed/bottom end of the pouch rather than to the top and bottom end; additionally, none of the other prior art, alone or in combination, discloses or renders obvious the claimed subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J WAGGENSPACK whose telephone number is (571)270-7418. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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.
/ADAM J WAGGENSPACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights