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 1-9 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.
Claims 1, 3-5 recites multiple sentences in the claims are it is unclear if Applicant intends to claim the additional limitation after the initial sentence. For the purpose of examination, all sentences within Claims 1, 3-5 are considered as a whole to the best of Examiner’s abilities. Clarification and correction is respectfully requested.
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 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kushner (US 7,872,187).
1: Kushner ‘187 teaches a guitar bag (guitar bag generally shown in Figures 1a-2b) consists of: a main body (main body generally shown as 16), a zipper (zipper 30a), and a handle (handle shown in Figure 1b and 2a). The main body includes a lower body (lower body 16) and an upper body (upper body 24). The lower body comprises a base (lower body bottom most portion 26) and side panels (vertical walls of 16), with the side panels surrounding the base (16 surrounds the perimeter of 26). The upper body comprises a cover (24) and cover panels (cover panel of 24, panels/side located along the perimeter of 24, along 24’s thickness), with the cover panels surrounding the cover (the sidewalls of 24 surrounds the perimeter of 24, see Figure 1b). One side of the zipper is connected to the side panels (30a is connected to the sidewalls of 24), while the other is connected to the cover panels (30a is connected to 16, see Figure 2a). The handle is positioned on the side panels (handle is on the panel 16, see Figure 2a).
8: Kushner ‘187 teaches the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 1 and Kushner further teaches that the base and the side panels form an integrated structure (see Figures 1a-2b).
9: Kushner ‘187 teaches the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 1 and Kushner further teaches that the cover and the cover panels form an integrated structure (see Figures 1a-2b).
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kushner (Kushner ‘235 US 2014/0131235).
1: Kushner ‘235 teaches a guitar bag (bag generally shown in Figure 2) consists of: a main body (main body left side of Figure 2), a zipper (zipper 21b), and a handle (handle 32). The main body includes a lower body (lower body left side of 21b) and an upper body (upper body right side of 21b). The lower body comprises a base (base at 25b, Figure 2) and side panels (side walls generally indicated as 33, which surrounds the perimeter of the base), with the side panels surrounding the base. The upper body comprises a cover (right side of 21b is a cover) and cover panels (panels, side thickness of 25a), with the cover panels surrounding the cover (surrounds the perimeter of 45a). One side of the zipper is connected to the side panels, while the other is connected to the cover panels (21b is connected to the side panels located along the left side of 21b and connected to the sidewall of 45a, along its perimeter). The handle is positioned on the side panels (handle is on 33, Figure 2).
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) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kushner (US 7,872,187).
2: Kushner ‘187 teaches the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 1 and Kushner ‘187 further teaches that when the zipper closes the upper body and the lower body, the distance between the handle and the base is L1 (see L1 in Figure 1b below), and the distance between the handle and the cover is L2 (see L1 in Figure 1b below), except for the explicit teaching of where L1 = L2.
Kushner ‘187 does show in Figure 1b that L1 is approximately equal to L2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kushner ‘187 such that the teaching of L1=L2 is applied in order to permit the handle to be approximately in the middle of the side of the guitar bag so that the handle can be used to have a balanced hold at the handle. Furthermore, Applicant has provided no evidence that different portions of the broad range or values would work differently, here, there is no allegation of criticality or any evidence demonstrating any difference across the range therefore such a modification would have 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. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
3: Kushner ‘187 teaches the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 1 and Kushner ‘187 further teaches that that the main body includes a neck (see neck in Figure 1b below) and a cavity (cavity behind the neck shown in Figure 2a). When the zipper closes the upper body and the lower body, at the neck, the distance between the zipper and the cover is d1 (see d1 below), and the distance between the zipper and the base is d2 (see d2 below) and d1 is shown as less than half of d2 in Figure 1b below except for the explicit teaching where dl ≥ d2/3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kushner ‘187 such that the teaching of dl ≥ d2/3 is applied in order to permit to have a smaller cover sidewalls in order to permit the cover to be easily lifted relative to the body when the guitar bag is in use. Furthermore, Applicant has provided no evidence that different portions of the broad range or values would work differently, here, there is no allegation of criticality or any evidence demonstrating any difference across the range therefore such a modification would have 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. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
PNG
media_image1.png
408
714
media_image1.png
Greyscale
4: Kushner ‘187 teaches the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 3 and Kushner ‘187 further teach that when the zipper closes the upper body and the lower body, at the cavity, the distance between the zipper and the cover is h1 (see Figure 1b above), and the distance between the zipper and the base is h2 (see h2 in Figure 1b above) and Kushner ‘187 teaches that h2 is greater than h1 and h1 is less than half of h2 except for the explicit teaching where h2 > h1 ≥ h2/3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kushner ‘187 such that the teaching of h2 > h1 ≥ h2/3 is applied in order to permit to have a smaller cover sidewalls in order to permit the cover to be easily lifted relative to the body when the guitar bag is in use. Furthermore, Applicant has provided no evidence that different portions of the broad range or values would work differently, here, there is no allegation of criticality or any evidence demonstrating any difference across the range therefore such a modification would have 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. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
5: Kushner ‘187 teaches the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 4 and Kushner ‘187 further teach that when the zipper closes the upper body and the lower body, at the neck, the distance between the zipper and the cover is dl (see d1 in Figure 1b above), and the distance between the zipper and the base is d2 (see d2 I Figure 1b above). At the cavity, the distance between the zipper and the cover is h1, and the distance between the zipper and the base is h2 (see h1 and h2 above and Figure 10 of Applicant’s drawings shows essentially the same structure as the prior art drawings) except for the explicit teaching of where dl = d2/2 and h1 = h2/2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kushner ‘187 such that the teaching of dl = d2/2 and h1 = h2/2 is applied in order to permit to have a smaller cover sidewalls in order to permit the cover to be easily lifted relative to the body when the guitar bag is in use. Furthermore, Applicant has provided no evidence that different portions of the broad range or values would work differently, here, there is no allegation of criticality or any evidence demonstrating any difference across the range therefore such a modification would have 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. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 2-3 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kushner (US Kushner ‘235 US 2014/0131235).
2: Kushner ‘235 teaches the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 1 and Kushner ‘235 further teaches that when the zipper closes the upper body and the lower body, the distance between the handle and the base is L1 (see L1 in Figure 2 below), and the distance between the handle and the cover is L2 (see L1 in Figure 2 below), except for the explicit teaching of where L1 = L2.
Kushner ‘235 does show in Figure 1b that L1 is approximately equal to L2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kushner ‘235 such that the teaching of L1=L2 is applied in order to permit the handle to be approximately in the middle of the side of the guitar bag so that the handle can be used to have a balanced hold at the handle. Furthermore, Applicant has provided no evidence that different portions of the broad range or values would work differently, here, there is no allegation of criticality or any evidence demonstrating any difference across the range therefore such a modification would have 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. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
3: Kushner ‘235 teaches the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 1 and Kushner ‘235 further teaches that that the main body includes a neck (see neck in Figure 1b below) and a cavity (cavity behind the neck shown in Figure 2a). When the zipper closes the upper body and the lower body, at the neck, the distance between the zipper and the cover is d1 (see d1 below), and the distance between the zipper and the base is d2 (see d2 below) and d1 is shown as less than half of d2 in Figure 1b below except for the explicit teaching where dl ≥ d2/3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kushner ‘235 such that the teaching of dl ≥ d2/3 is applied in order to permit to have a smaller cover sidewalls in order to permit the cover to be easily lifted relative to the body when the guitar bag is in use. Furthermore, Applicant has provided no evidence that different portions of the broad range or values would work differently, here, there is no allegation of criticality or any evidence demonstrating any difference across the range therefore such a modification would have 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. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
PNG
media_image2.png
620
808
media_image2.png
Greyscale
6: The modified Kushner ‘235 teaches the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 3 and Kushner ‘235 further teaches that in the direction from the neck to the cavity, the distance between zipper and the cover gradually decreases (distance between open zipper 21b decreases from 21b of 33 to 21b of 19 while the zipper is being zipped by the zipper head), while the distance between the zipper and the base gradually increases (distance from d1 to h4 gradually increases, see Figure 2).
7: The modified Kushner ‘235 teaches the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 6 and Kushner ‘235 further teaches that when the zipper closes the upper body and the lower body, at the cavity, the distance between the zipper and the cover is h3, and the distance between the zipper and the base is h4, where h3 < h4 (see Figure 2 above where h3 is less than h4).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KING M CHU whose telephone number is (571)270-7428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM - 6PM 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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571) 272 - 4561. 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.
/King M Chu/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735