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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 11/15/2024 and 1/6/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 21-33, 40-46 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.
Regarding claim 21, it appears that different wording is necessary to have the claim make sense. It appears that it should read “a pair of ports at the base and the first and second lateral sides [[at]] where corner portions of the pack article would be”.
Regarding claim 40, it should read “at corner portions of the ruck plate” to properly refer to this element.
Claims 22-33 and 41-46 depend from the above claim(s) and are rejected for the above reason as they do not cure the deficiency.
Double Patenting
Claims 21-27, 29-35, 37-41, 43-50 and 53-56 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 7-10, 12, 14-16, 18 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,144,413. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 21, 47-48 and 53-56, claim 1 of the ‘413 Patent discloses each of these elements with minor wording variations. For example, the “exercise plate” in the instant application is called “weighted exercise plate” and the “back support members” in the instant application are called “pad members”.
Regarding claim 22, claim 3 of the ‘413 Patent discloses the claimed elements.
Regarding claim 23, claim 4 of the ‘413 Patent discloses the claimed elements.
Regarding claims 24 and 49-50, claim 7 of the ‘413 Patent discloses the claimed elements.
Regarding claim 25, claim 8 of the ‘413 Patent discloses the claimed elements.
Regarding claim 26, claim 9 of the ‘413 Patent discloses the claimed elements.
Regarding claim 27, claim 10 of the ‘413 Patent discloses the claimed elements.
Regarding claim 29, claim 5 of the ‘413 Patent discloses the claimed elements.
Regarding claim 30, claim 14 of the ‘413 Patent discloses the claimed elements.
Regarding claim 31, claim 2 of the ‘413 Patent discloses the claimed elements.
Regarding claims 32-33, claim 12 of the ‘413 Patent discloses the claimed elements.
Regarding claims 34 and 45, claim 15 of the ‘413 Patent discloses the claimed elements.
Regarding claim 35, claim 16 of the ‘413 Patent discloses the claimed elements.
Regarding claims 37 and 46, claim 18 of the ‘413 Patent discloses the claimed elements.
Regarding claims 38-39, claim 20 of the ‘413 Patent discloses the claimed elements.
Regarding claim 40, claim 15 of the ‘413 Patent discloses the claimed elements.
Regarding claim 41, claim 16 of the ‘413 Patent discloses the claimed elements.
Regarding claims 43-44, claim 20 of the ‘413 Patent discloses the claimed elements.
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) 21-23, 29-33, 47-48 and 51-56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GORUCK Pre-Selection (“Pre-Selection” – youtube.com, NPL) in view of US Patent 6,763,987 to Eberle.
Regarding claim 21, Pre-Selection discloses a pack article configured to carry an exercise plate (Annotated screenshot below), comprising: a base (bottom of pack); a top (top of pack) spaced from the base; a front panel (front panel of pack) coupled to the base and the top; a back panel (back panel of pack) coupled to the base and the top; a first lateral side (one lateral side of pack) that extends from the front panel to the back panel and from the base to the top; a second lateral side (other lateral side of pack) that extends from the front panel to the back panel and from the base to the top, wherein the second lateral side is opposite the first lateral side; an internal space (interior of pack) defined by inner surfaces of the base, the front panel, the back panel, and the first and second lateral sides, the internal space having a width, a depth, and a height that is sized to hold therein the exercise plate (Annotated screenshot below), such that the exercise plate occupies a substantial majority of the internal space (Annotated screenshot below); and a pair of ports (Annotated Screenshot below) at the base and the first and second lateral sides at corner portions of the pack article would be, wherein the pair of ports permit visual determination of a presence of the exercise plate from a location external to the pack article, wherein the pair of ports are configured to allow fluid to pass therethrough (the ports would be capable of this function). Pre-Selection fails to disclose a closure member, back support members, a lumbar support member, shoulder straps and a sternum strap. However, Eberle discloses a pack article including a closure member (10) coupled to at least a portion of a top of the back panel, the closure member being configured to overlap a portion of the front panel, wherein the closure member is moveable between a first position (open) for loading the exercise plate in the internal space (the open position is capable of this function), and a second position (closed) that secures the exercise plate in the internal space when the exercise plate is in the internal space (the closed position is capable of this function); one or more back support members (Annotated Fig. 2 below) along the back panel; a lumbar support member (Annotated Fig. 2) along the back panel; shoulder straps (2); and a sternum strap (3) on the shoulder straps that are configured to releasably connect the shoulder straps together. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included Eberle’s closure member in Pre-Selection because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent closure element for another to obtain predictable results. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included back support members and a lumbar support member in Pre-Selection to make carrying the pack article more comfortable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included shoulder straps and a sternum strap in Pre-Selection to securely hold the pack article to the user.
PNG
media_image1.png
703
800
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Pre-Selection Annotated Screenshot
PNG
media_image2.png
509
511
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Eberle Annotated Fig. 2
Regarding claim 22, the combination from claim 21 discloses at least one fastener member (11 – Eberle) configured to secure the closure member to the front panel.
Regarding claim 23, the combination from claim 21 discloses wherein the at least one fastener member includes a first fastener member (Eberle – half of buckle 11 on closure member 10) on the closure member and a second fastener member (Eberle – half of buckle 11 on front panel of 9) on the front panel, the first fastener member is configured to engage to the second fastener member to secure the weighted exercise plate in the internal space (Eberle – Fig. 1/Pre-Selection).
Regarding claim 29, the combination from claim 21 discloses wherein the weighted exercise plate has a plate width, a plate height and a plate depth that forms a plate volume that substantially conforms to the internal space (see Pre-Selection Annotated Screenshot above; also note that the backpack is capable of holding a plate that substantially conforms to the internal space – the plate is only functionally claimed).
Regarding claim 30, it appears that the internal dimensions of Pre-Selection (in relation to the wearer’s body) are approximately in the claimed ranges. However, to the extent there is any doubt, making the carry pack with the claimed dimensions would have been obvious because it only involves a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 31, the combination from claim 21 discloses wherein the lumbar support member, the sternum strap and the closure member are configured to maintain stability of the pack article and the weighted exercise plate during active movement by a user when the pack article is worn, and the sternum strap is clasped (these elements are capable of maintaining stability as claimed).
Regarding claim 32, the combination from claim 21 discloses wherein the lumbar support member traverses an entirety of a width of the back panel, and between 10% and 25% of a height of the back panel (Eberle Figs. 2, 5).
Regarding claim 33, the combination from claim 21 discloses wherein the lumbar support member has a thickness that is greater than a thickness of the one or more back support members (Eberle Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 47, Pre-Selection discloses a pack article configured to carry an exercise plate, comprising: a first side (bottom of pack); a second side (top of pack) positioned opposite from the first side; a third side (front of pack) coupled to the first side and the second side; a fourth side (back of pack) coupled to the first side and the second side, the fourth side opposite to the third side; a fifth side (one lateral side of pack) that extends from the third side to the fourth side and from the first side to the second side; a sixth side (other lateral side of pack) that extends from the third side to the fourth side and from the first side to the second side, wherein the sixth side is opposite the fifth side; an internal space (internal space of pack) defined by inner surfaces of the first side, the third side, the fourth side, and the fifth and sixth sides, the internal space sized to hold the exercise plate, such that the exercise plate occupies a majority of the internal space (Annotated Screenshot above). Pre-Selection fails to disclose a closure member, back support members, and shoulder straps. However, Eberle discloses a pack article including a closure member (10) coupled to at least a portion of the fourth side, wherein the closure member is moveable between a first position (open) for loading the exercise plate in the internal space (the open position is capable of this function), and a second position (closed) that secures the exercise plate in the internal space when the exercise plate is in the internal space (the closed position is capable of this function); one or more back support members (Annotated Fig. 2 above) along the fourth side; and shoulder straps (2) coupled to one or more sides. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included Eberle’s closure member in Pre-Selection because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent closure element for another to obtain predictable results. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included back support members in Pre-Selection to make carrying the pack article more comfortable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included shoulder straps in Pre-Selection to securely hold the pack article to the user.
Regarding claim 48, the combination from claim 47 discloses wherein at least one side of the pack article includes the closure member (the fourth side includes the closure member – Pre-Selection/Eberle).
Regarding claim 51, the combination from claim 47 discloses wherein the shoulder straps are padded (Eberle – abstract).
Regarding claim 52, the combination from claim 47 discloses wherein the internal space is configured to carry the exercise plate, wherein the exercise plate weighs 45 pounds or less (the internal space is capable of carrying an exercise plate weighing 45 pounds or less – the plate is not positively claimed).
Regarding claims 53-55, the combination from claim 47 discloses wherein the first side includes a base of the pack article, and the second side includes a top of the pack article; wherein the third side includes a front side of the pack article, and the fourth side includes a back side of the pack article; wherein the fifth side includes a first lateral side of the pack article, and the sixth side includes a second lateral side of the pack article (Pre-Selection).
Regarding claim 56, the combination from claim 47 fails to disclose a lumbar support member and a sternum strap. However, Eberle discloses a pack article including a lumbar support member (Annotated Fig. 2) along the fourth side and a sternum strap (3) on the shoulder straps that are configured to releasably connect the shoulder straps together. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included Eberle’s lumbar support member in Pre-Selection to make carrying the pack article more comfortable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included a sternum strap in Pre-Selection to securely hold the pack article to the user.
Claim(s) 24 and 49-50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pre-Selection and Eberle, further in view of US Patent 5,934,527 to Von Neumann.
Regarding claim 24, the combination from claim 21 fails to disclose a handle. However, Von Neumann discloses a pack wherein the closure member (36) includes a handle (Figs. 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included a handle on the closure member in the combination because it would provide more carrying options for the user.
Regarding claim 49, the combination from claim 47 fails to disclose a handle. However, Von Neumann discloses a pack wherein the closure member (36) includes a handle (Figs. 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included a handle on the closure member (and on the fourth side) in the combination because it would provide more carrying options for the user.
Regarding claim 50, the combination from claim 49 discloses wherein the handle is positioned at a top of the pack article (Von Neumann).
Claim(s) 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pre-Selection and Eberle, further in view of EP 328,470 to Dufournet.
Regarding claim 25, the combination from claim 21 fails to disclose first and second panels. However, Dufournet discloses a carrier having an internal space with an upper opening, wherein the closure member includes a first panel circumscribing an upper opening of the internal space, and a second panel that overlaps an upper portion of the front panel (Annotated Fig. 3 below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used Dufournet’s closure in the combination because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent flap closure element for another to obtain predictable results.
PNG
media_image3.png
646
286
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Dufournet Annotated Fig. 3
Regarding claim 26, the combination from claim 24 discloses wherein the first panel has a thickness that is greater than a thickness of the second panel (Annotated Fig. 3 above).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pre-Selection and Eberle, further in view of US Design Patent D425,584 to Hines and US Design Patent D685,440 to Tuttle.
Regarding claim 27, the combination from claim 21 fails to disclose the claimed dimensions. However, Hines discloses a carrying pocket that has a height to width ratio of about 1.7:1 (see thigh pocket in Fig. 1) and Tuttle discloses a weight that has a height to depth ratio of about 18:1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have made the pocket with the claimed height to width ratio (as disclosed in Hines) and the claimed height to depth ratio (i.e. to hold the weight shown in Tuttle) because it only involves a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claim(s) 28, 40 and 42-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pre-Selection and Eberle, further in view of US Published Application 2005/0017041 to Roberts.
Regarding claim 28, the combination from claim 21 fails to disclose a movable sternum strap. However, Roberts discloses a pack article including a sternum strap (106) that is configured to be repositioned upward or downward on the shoulder straps (para. 0039). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have made the sternum strap height adjustable to allow the pack article to adjust to various user sizes and shapes.
Regarding claim 40, Pre-Selection discloses a ruck plate carrier configured to hold an exercise plate, comprising: a base (bottom of pack); a top (top of pack) spaced from the base; a front panel (front panel of base) coupled to the base and the top; a back panel (back panel of pack) coupled to the base and the top; first lateral side (one side of pack) that extends between the front panel and the back panel and from the base to the top; a second lateral side (other side of pack) that extends between the front panel and the back panel and from the base to the top; an internal space (internal space of pack) defined by inner surfaces of the base, the front panel, the back panel, the first lateral side, and the second lateral side, such that the internal space is sized to receive therein the exercise plate (Annotated Screenshot above), a pair of ports (Annotated Screenshot above) at the base and the first and second lateral sides at corner portions ruck plate carrier, wherein the pair of ports permit visual determination of a presence of the exercise plate from a location external to the ruck plate carrier, wherein the pair of ports are configured to allow fluid to pass therethrough (Annotated Screenshot). Pre-Selection fails to disclose a closure member, back support members, a lumbar support member, shoulder straps and a sternum strap. However, Eberle discloses a pack article including a closure member (10 – Eberle) on the back panel and configured to overlap a portion of the front panel, one or more back support members (Eberle Annotated Fig. 2 above) along the back panel, a lumbar support member (Eberle Annotated Fig. 2) along the back panel, shoulder straps (2 – Eberle), and a sternum strap connected to the shoulder straps. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included Eberle’s closure member in Pre-Selection because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent closure element for another to obtain predictable results. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included back support members and a lumbar support member in Pre-Selection to make carrying the pack article more comfortable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included shoulder straps and a sternum strap in Pre-Selection to securely hold the pack article to the user. The combination fails to disclose an adjustable sternum strap. However, Roberts discloses a pack article including a sternum strap (106) that is configured to be repositioned upward or downward on the shoulder straps (para. 0039). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have made the sternum strap height adjustable to allow the pack article to adjust to various user sizes and shapes. It appears that the internal dimensions of Pre-Selection (in relation to the wearer’s body) are approximately in the claimed ranges. However, to the extent there is any doubt, making the carry pack with the claimed dimensions would have been obvious because it only involves a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 42, the combination from claim 40 discloses wherein the sternum strap is configured to be repositioned upward or downward on the shoulder straps (Roberts para. 0039).
Regarding claim 43, the combination from claim 40 discloses wherein the lumbar support member traverses a width of the back panel, and extends between 10% and 25% of a height of the back panel (Eberle Figs. 2, 5).
Regarding claim 44, the combination from claim 40 discloses wherein the lumbar support member has a thickness that is greater than a thickness of the one or more back support members (Eberle Fig. 5).
Claim(s) 34, 36, 38-39 and 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pre-Selection in view of Eberle, Roberts and US Published Application 2005/0096199 to Egbert.
Regarding claim 34, Pre-Selection discloses an exercise system, comprising: an exercise plate (Pre-Selection Annotated Screenshot above); and a pack article having a base (bottom of pack), a top (top of pack) spaced from the base, a front panel (front panel of pack) coupled to the base and the top, a back panel (back panel of pack) coupled to the base and the top, first lateral side (one side of pack) that extends between the front panel and the back panel and from the base to the top, a second lateral side (other side of pack) that extends between the front panel and the back panel and from the base to the top, an internal space (internal space of pack) defined by inner surfaces of the base, the front panel, the back panel, the first lateral side, and the second lateral side, a pair of ports (Pre-Selection Annotated Screenshot) at the base and the first and second lateral sides at corner portions of the pack article, and the pair of ports permit visual determination of a presence of the exercise plate from a location external to the pack article and are configured to allow fluid to pass therethrough (Pre-Selection Annotated Screenshot). Pre-Selection fails to disclose a closure member, back support members, a lumbar support member, shoulder straps and a sternum strap. However, Eberle discloses a pack article including a closure member (10 – Eberle) on the back panel and configured to overlap a portion of the front panel, one or more back support members (Eberle Annotated Fig. 2 above) along the back panel, a lumbar support member (Eberle Annotated Fig. 2) along the back panel, shoulder straps (2), and a sternum strap (3) connected to the shoulder straps. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included Eberle’s closure member in Pre-Selection because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent closure element for another to obtain predictable results. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included back support members and a lumbar support member in Pre-Selection to make carrying the pack article more comfortable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included shoulder straps and a sternum strap in Pre-Selection to securely hold the pack article to the user. The combination fails to disclose an adjustable sternum strap. However, Roberts discloses a pack article including a sternum strap (106) that is configured to be repositioned upward or downward on the shoulder straps (para. 0039). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have made the sternum strap height adjustable to allow the pack article to adjust to various user sizes and shapes. It appears that the internal dimensions of Pre-Selection (in relation to the wearer’s body) are approximately in the claimed ranges. However, to the extent there is any doubt, making the carry pack with the claimed dimensions would have been obvious because it only involves a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Pre-Selection appears to disclose the exercise plate fitting snugly within the internal space of the carrier (Pre-Selection Annotated Screenshot), which would place the dimensions of the plate within the claimed ranges. However, to the extent there is any doubt, Egbert discloses a weight carrying pocket in which the weight has dimensions that allow it to fit snugly within the pocket (Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have made the weight plate with dimensions that would allow for a snug fit within the internal space (which would result in the claimed dimensions) because it would securely hold the weight within the pocket. Further, using the claimed dimensions would have only involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 36, the combination from claim 34 discloses wherein the sternum strap is configured to be repositioned upward or downward on the shoulder straps (Roberts para. 0039).
Regarding claim 38, the combination from claim 34 discloses wherein the lumbar support member traverses an entirety of a width of the back panel, and between 10% and 25% of a height of the back panel (Eberle Figs. 2, 5).
Regarding claim 39, the combination from claim 34 discloses wherein the lumbar support member has a thickness that is greater than a thickness of the one or more back support members (Eberle Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 45, the combination from claim 40 appears to disclose the exercise plate fitting snugly within the internal space of the carrier (Pre-Selection Annotated Screenshot), which would place the dimensions of the plate within the claimed ranges. However, to the extent there is any doubt, Egbert discloses a weight carrying pocket in which the weight has dimensions that allow it to fit snugly within the pocket (Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have made the weight plate with dimensions that would allow for a snug fit within the internal space (which would result in the claimed dimensions) because it would securely hold the weight within the pocket. Further, using the claimed dimensions would have only involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pre-Selection, Eberle, Roberts and Egbert, further in view of Hines and Tuttle.
Regarding claim 35, the combination from claim 34 fails to disclose the claimed dimensions. However, Hines discloses a carrying pocket that has a height to width ratio of about 1.7:1 (see thigh pocket in Fig. 1) and Tuttle discloses a weight that has a height to depth ratio of about 18:1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have made the pocket with the claimed height to width ratio (as disclosed in Hines) and the claimed height to depth ratio (i.e. to hold the weight shown in Tuttle) because it only involves a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pre-Selection, Eberle, Roberts and Egbert, further in view of Goruck.com (Applicant’s NPL #8, cited on 11/15/2024).
Regarding claim 37, the combination from claim 34 fails to disclose the claimed weight range. However, Goruck.com discloses an exercise vest in which the weight is between 10 and 45 lbs (left side of page 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used weight between 10 and 45 lbs because it only involves choosing from a finite number of predictable weights to use in a weight carrier.
Claim(s) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pre-Selection, Eberle and Roberts, further in view of Hines and Tuttle.
Regarding claim 41, the combination from claim 40 fails to disclose the claimed dimensions. However, Hines discloses a carrying pocket that has a height to width ratio of about 1.7:1 (see thigh pocket in Fig. 1) and Tuttle discloses a weight that has a height to depth ratio of about 18:1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have made the pocket with the claimed height to width ratio (as disclosed in Hines) and the claimed height to depth ratio (i.e. to hold the weight shown in Tuttle) because it only involves a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claim(s) 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pre-Selection, Eberle and Roberts, further in view of Goruck.com.
Regarding claim 46, the combination from claim 40 fails to disclose the claimed weight range. However, Goruck.com discloses an exercise vest in which the weight is between 10 and 45 lbs (left side of page 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used weight between 10 and 45 lbs because it only involves choosing from a finite number of predictable weights to use in a weight carrier.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references disclose configurations similar to that disclosed by applicant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT T MCNURLEN whose telephone number is (313)446-4898. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-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, 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.
/SCOTT T MCNURLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights