Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
2. The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the specification never mentions the lever of claim 4.
Drawings
3. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the lever of claim 4 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 Objections
4. Claim 6 is objected to because it should depend from claim 5 instead of claim 4 in order to provide proper antecedent basis for “the spring loaded tabs”. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed claim 6 is meant to depend from claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albert (US 3,530,919 A) in view of Buttermore (US 11,648,883 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Albert discloses a bag (1) for carrying a set of golf clubs (golf clubs not currently being claimed in combination) while playing golf and while traveling, the bag comprising: at least two panels (2 and 3), each comprising a first face and an opposite second face (see Figures), the first face comprising sleeves (9a/10) for insertion of shafts of golf clubs (see Figures), wherein the at least two panels are connected (via 16) so as to provide a playing mode (see Figure 3) with the first faces facing outward, thus providing access to the golf clubs, and so as to provide a travel mode (see Figures 1 and 2) with the first faces facing inward, thus protecting the golf clubs while travelling (see “adapt the bag for either traveling or play” in Abstract). Albert fails to disclose two suction grippers, each attached to at least one of the second faces, the suction grippers configured to attach the bag to a surface of a vehicle (vehicle not currently being claimed in combination) for transit.
Buttermore teaches that it was already known in the art for a golf club container (102, see “golf clubs” in col. 5 lines 9-10) to include suction grippers (106) with an actuator pump (110) and release (see “actuates…pump” in col. 4 lines 53-55 and “released” in col. 2 line 33) for mounting to a vehicle roof for transport. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the Albert bag with suction grippers having an actuator and release, the motivation being to allow a user to transport the bag on a vehicle roof, as taught by Buttermore.
Regarding claim 2, Albert as modified above would include the bag of claim 1, wherein the suction grippers each comprise an actuator configured to pull and lock a suction state to attach the bag to the surface of the vehicle and release the suction state to release the bag from the surface of the vehicle, as taught by Buttermore.
Regarding claim 3, Albert as modified above would include the bag of claim 2, wherein the actuator comprises a user operated pump to pull air and create suction in the suction gripper and wherein the actuator further comprises a user operated release to release the suction from the suction gripper, as taught by Buttermore.
Regarding claim 7, Albert as modified above would include the bag of claim 1, Albert further disclosing a cover (12) for covering the end of the bag and heads of the golf clubs when in the travel mode (see Figure 1).
8. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albert (US 3,530,919 A) in view of Buttermore (US 11,648,883 B1) as applied above, further in view of Aguilar (US 2009/0127411 A1.
Regarding claim 4, Albert as modified above would include the bag of claim 2, but so far fails to include wherein the actuator comprises a user operated lever configured to pull suction on the suction grippers. Buttermore discloses suction actuation but does not specify lever operation. Aguilar teaches that it was already known in the art to utilize a lever (85) to actuate a suction cup. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the suction grippers of the modified Albert bag with lever actuation, as taught by Aguiar, as a simple selection between known suction gripper actuation mechanisms in order to achieve the predictable result of a functioning suction gripper.
9. Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albert (US 3,530,919 A) in view of Buttermore (US 11,648,883 B1) as applied above, further in view of Kuhn et al. (US 2015/0191130 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Albert as modified above would include the bag of claim 1, but so far fails to include wherein the suction grippers are attached to the at least one of the second faces by two spring loaded tabs inserting into detents formed in the at least one of the second faces.
Regarding claim 6, Albert as modified above so far fails to comprise the bag of claim 5, and also fails to further comprise a tab release button for withdrawing the spring loaded tabs from the detents, thereby releasing the suction grippers from the at least one of the second faces.
While suction grippers like those of Buttermore have been added to the Albert bag as set forth above, the exact manner in which the suction grippers are attached to the Albert bag has not yet been established. Kuhn teaches that it was already known to connect two parts of a vehicle accessory by providing one part with a receptacle (2) and the mating part with an insertion member (4) which includes two spring-loaded tabs (4d) that engage within the receptacle and which are released using a button (4g) to allow separation of the mating parts. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have explored known methods for connecting the parts of a vehicle accessory and to have used a connection like that of Kuhn, providing a receptacle on the bag and an insertion member with spring-loaded tabs and a release button on the suction grippers, the motivation being to provide effective attachment of the suction grippers to the bag and allow them to be removed as needed.
10. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albert (US 3,530,919 A) in view of Buttermore (US 11,648,883 B1) as applied above, further in view of Tan (US 6,401,890 B1).
Regarding claim 8, Albert as modified above would include the bag of claim 7, but so far fails to include wherein the cover comprises wheels, whereby, when the bag is vertically inverted, the wheels allow the bag to be pushed and pulled by a user. Tan teaches that it was already known in the art for a removable cover (1) like that of Albert to include wheels (13) for rolling the bag along the floor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the cover of the modified Albert bag with wheels, the motivation being to allow a user to roll the bag along the floor, as taught by Tan.
Double Patenting
11. 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).
12. 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).
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. Claims 1-3 and 7-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/031,799 in view of Buttermore (US 11,648,883 B1).
The copending claims recite all of the presently claimed structure except for two suction grippers, each attached to at least one of the second faces, the suction grippers configured to attach the bag to a surface of a vehicle (vehicle not currently being claimed in combination) for transit.
Buttermore teaches that it was already known in the art for a golf club container (102, see “golf clubs” in col. 5 lines 9-10) to include suction grippers (106) with an actuator pump (110) and release (see “actuates…pump” in col. 4 lines 53-55 and “released” in col. 2 line 33) for mounting to a vehicle roof for transport. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the bag of the copending claims with suction grippers having an actuator and release, the motivation being to allow a user to transport the bag on a vehicle roof, as taught by Buttermore.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
16. Claims 4 and 12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/031,799 in view of Buttermore (US 11,648,883 B1) as applied above, further in view of Aguilar (US 2009/0127411 A1.
The copending claims as modified above would include the bag of claims 2 and 10, but so far fails to include wherein the actuator comprises a user operated lever configured to pull suction on the suction grippers. Buttermore discloses suction actuation but does not specify lever operation. Aguilar teaches that it was already known in the art to utilize a lever (85) to actuate a suction cup. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the suction grippers of the modified bag of the copending claims with lever actuation, as taught by Aguiar, as a simple selection between known suction gripper actuation mechanisms in order to achieve the predictable result of a functioning suction gripper.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
17. Claims 5, 6, 13, and 14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/031,799 in view of Buttermore (US 11,648,883 B1) as applied above, further in view of Kuhn et al. (US 2015/0191130 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, the copending claims as modified above would include the bag of claim 1, but so far fails to include wherein the suction grippers are attached to the at least one of the second faces by two spring loaded tabs inserting into detents formed in the at least one of the second faces.
Regarding claims 6 and 14, the copending claims as modified above so far fails to comprise the bag of claims 5 and 13, and also fails to further comprise a tab release button for withdrawing the spring loaded tabs from the detents, thereby releasing the suction grippers from the at least one of the second faces.
While suction grippers like those of Buttermore have been added to the bag of the copending claims as set forth above, the exact manner in which the suction grippers are attached to the bag of the copending claims has not yet been established. Kuhn teaches that it was already known to connect two parts of a vehicle accessory by providing one part with a receptacle (2) and the mating part with an insertion member (4) which includes two spring-loaded tabs (4d) that engage within the receptacle and which are released using a button (4g) to allow separation of the mating parts. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have explored known methods for connecting the parts of a vehicle accessory and to have used a connection like that of Kuhn, providing a receptacle on the bag and an insertion member with spring-loaded tabs and a release button on the suction grippers, the motivation being to provide effective attachment of the suction grippers to the bag and allow them to be removed as needed.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
18. Claims 1-3 and 9-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9-14 of copending Application No. 19/031,812 in view of Buttermore (US 11,648,883 B1).
The copending claims recite all of the presently claimed structure except for two suction grippers, each attached to at least one of the second faces, the suction grippers configured to attach the bag to a surface of a vehicle (vehicle not currently being claimed in combination) for transit.
Buttermore teaches that it was already known in the art for a golf club container (102, see “golf clubs” in col. 5 lines 9-10) to include suction grippers (106) with an actuator pump (110) and release (see “actuates…pump” in col. 4 lines 53-55 and “released” in col. 2 line 33) for mounting to a vehicle roof for transport. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the bag of the copending claims with suction grippers having an actuator and release, the motivation being to allow a user to transport the bag on a vehicle roof, as taught by Buttermore.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
19. Claims 4 and 12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9-14 of copending Application No. 19/031,812 in view of Buttermore (US 11,648,883 B1) as applied above, further in view of Aguilar (US 2009/0127411 A1.
The copending claims as modified above would include the bag of claims 2 and 10, but so far fails to include wherein the actuator comprises a user operated lever configured to pull suction on the suction grippers. Buttermore discloses suction actuation but does not specify lever operation. Aguilar teaches that it was already known in the art to utilize a lever (85) to actuate a suction cup. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the suction grippers of the modified bag of the copending claims with lever actuation, as taught by Aguiar, as a simple selection between known suction gripper actuation mechanisms in order to achieve the predictable result of a functioning suction gripper.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
20. Claims 5, 6, 13, and 14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9-14 of copending Application No. 19/031,812 in view of Buttermore (US 11,648,883 B1) as applied above, further in view of Kuhn et al. (US 2015/0191130 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, the copending claims as modified above would include the bag of claim 1, but so far fails to include wherein the suction grippers are attached to the at least one of the second faces by two spring loaded tabs inserting into detents formed in the at least one of the second faces.
Regarding claims 6 and 14, the copending claims as modified above so far fails to comprise the bag of claims 5 and 13, and also fails to further comprise a tab release button for withdrawing the spring loaded tabs from the detents, thereby releasing the suction grippers from the at least one of the second faces.
While suction grippers like those of Buttermore have been added to the bag of the copending claims as set forth above, the exact manner in which the suction grippers are attached to the bag of the copending claims has not yet been established. Kuhn teaches that it was already known to connect two parts of a vehicle accessory by providing one part with a receptacle (2) and the mating part with an insertion member (4) which includes two spring-loaded tabs (4d) that engage within the receptacle and which are released using a button (4g) to allow separation of the mating parts. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have explored known methods for connecting the parts of a vehicle accessory and to have used a connection like that of Kuhn, providing a receptacle on the bag and an insertion member with spring-loaded tabs and a release button on the suction grippers, the motivation being to provide effective attachment of the suction grippers to the bag and allow them to be removed as needed.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
21. Claim 7 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9-14 of copending Application No. 19/031,812 in view of Buttermore (US 11,648,883 B1) as applied above, further in view of Albert (US 3,530,919 A).
Regarding claim 7, the bag of the copending claims as modified above would include the bag of claim 7, but so far fails to include a cover.
Albert teaches that it was already known in the art to provide a golf bag with a cover (12). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the modified bag of the copending claims with a cover like that of Albert, the motivation being to protect the clubs during transport.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
23. Claim 8 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9-14 of copending Application No. 19/031,812 in view of Buttermore (US 11,648,883 B1) and Albert (US 3,530,919 A) as applied above, further in view of Tan (US 6,401,890 B1).
Regarding claim 8, the bag of the copending claims as modified above would include the bag of claim 7, but so far fails to include wherein the cover comprises wheels, whereby, when the bag is vertically inverted, the wheels allow the bag to be pushed and pulled by a user. Tan teaches that it was already known in the art for a removable cover (1) like that of Albert to include wheels (13) for rolling the bag along the floor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the cover of the bag of the copending claims as modified above with wheels, the motivation being to allow a user to roll the bag along the floor, as taught by Tan.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
24. Claims 1-3 and 7-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of copending Application No. 19/031,819 in view of Buttermore (US 11,648,883 B1).
The copending claims recite all of the presently claimed structure except for two suction grippers, each attached to at least one of the second faces, the suction grippers configured to attach the bag to a surface of a vehicle (vehicle not currently being claimed in combination) for transit.
Buttermore teaches that it was already known in the art for a golf club container (102, see “golf clubs” in col. 5 lines 9-10) to include suction grippers (106) with an actuator pump (110) and release (see “actuates…pump” in col. 4 lines 53-55 and “released” in col. 2 line 33) for mounting to a vehicle roof for transport. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the bag of the copending claims with suction grippers having an actuator and release, the motivation being to allow a user to transport the bag on a vehicle roof, as taught by Buttermore.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
25. Claims 4 and 12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of copending Application No. 19/031,819 in view of Buttermore (US 11,648,883 B1) as applied above, further in view of Aguilar (US 2009/0127411 A1.
The copending claims as modified above would include the bag of claims 2 and 10, but so far fails to include wherein the actuator comprises a user operated lever configured to pull suction on the suction grippers. Buttermore discloses suction actuation but does not specify lever operation. Aguilar teaches that it was already known in the art to utilize a lever (85) to actuate a suction cup. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the suction grippers of the modified bag of the copending claims with lever actuation, as taught by Aguiar, as a simple selection between known suction gripper actuation mechanisms in order to achieve the predictable result of a functioning suction gripper.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
26. Claims 5, 6, 13, and 14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of copending Application No. 19/031,819 in view of Buttermore (US 11,648,883 B1) as applied above, further in view of Kuhn et al. (US 2015/0191130 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, the copending claims as modified above would include the bag of claim 1, but so far fails to include wherein the suction grippers are attached to the at least one of the second faces by two spring loaded tabs inserting into detents formed in the at least one of the second faces.
Regarding claims 6 and 14, the copending claims as modified above so far fails to comprise the bag of claims 5 and 13, and also fails to further comprise a tab release button for withdrawing the spring loaded tabs from the detents, thereby releasing the suction grippers from the at least one of the second faces.
While suction grippers like those of Buttermore have been added to the bag of the copending claims as set forth above, the exact manner in which the suction grippers are attached to the bag of the copending claims has not yet been established. Kuhn teaches that it was already known to connect two parts of a vehicle accessory by providing one part with a receptacle (2) and the mating part with an insertion member (4) which includes two spring-loaded tabs (4d) that engage within the receptacle and which are released using a button (4g) to allow separation of the mating parts. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have explored known methods for connecting the parts of a vehicle accessory and to have used a connection like that of Kuhn, providing a receptacle on the bag and an insertion member with spring-loaded tabs and a release button on the suction grippers, the motivation being to provide effective attachment of the suction grippers to the bag and allow them to be removed as needed.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
27. Claims 1-3 and 9-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 19/031,803 in view of Buttermore (US 11,648,883 B1).
The copending claims recite all of the presently claimed structure except for two suction grippers, each attached to at least one of the second faces, the suction grippers configured to attach the bag to a surface of a vehicle (vehicle not currently being claimed in combination) for transit.
Buttermore teaches that it was already known in the art for a golf club container (102, see “golf clubs” in col. 5 lines 9-10) to include suction grippers (106) with an actuator pump (110) and release (see “actuates…pump” in col. 4 lines 53-55 and “released” in col. 2 line 33) for mounting to a vehicle roof for transport. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the bag of the copending claims with suction grippers having an actuator and release, the motivation being to allow a user to transport the bag on a vehicle roof, as taught by Buttermore.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
28. Claims 4 and 12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 19/031,803 in view of Buttermore (US 11,648,883 B1) as applied above, further in view of Aguilar (US 2009/0127411 A1.
The copending claims as modified above would include the bag of claims 2 and 10, but so far fails to include wherein the actuator comprises a user operated lever configured to pull suction on the suction grippers. Buttermore discloses suction actuation but does not specify lever operation. Aguilar teaches that it was already known in the art to utilize a lever (85) to actuate a suction cup. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the suction grippers of the modified bag of the copending claims with lever actuation, as taught by Aguiar, as a simple selection between known suction gripper actuation mechanisms in order to achieve the predictable result of a functioning suction gripper.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
29. Claims 5, 6, 13, and 14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 19/031,803 in view of Buttermore (US 11,648,883 B1) as applied above, further in view of Kuhn et al. (US 2015/0191130 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, the copending claims as modified above would include the bag of claim 1, but so far fails to include wherein the suction grippers are attached to the at least one of the second faces by two spring loaded tabs inserting into detents formed in the at least one of the second faces.
Regarding claims 6 and 14, the copending claims as modified above so far fails to comprise the bag of claims 5 and 13, and also fails to further comprise a tab release button for withdrawing the spring loaded tabs from the detents, thereby releasing the suction grippers from the at least one of the second faces.
While suction grippers like those of Buttermore have been added to the bag of the copending claims as set forth above, the exact manner in which the suction grippers are attached to the bag of the copending claims has not yet been established. Kuhn teaches that it was already known to connect two parts of a vehicle accessory by providing one part with a receptacle (2) and the mating part with an insertion member (4) which includes two spring-loaded tabs (4d) that engage within the receptacle and which are released using a button (4g) to allow separation of the mating parts. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have explored known methods for connecting the parts of a vehicle accessory and to have used a connection like that of Kuhn, providing a receptacle on the bag and an insertion member with spring-loaded tabs and a release button on the suction grippers, the motivation being to provide effective attachment of the suction grippers to the bag and allow them to be removed as needed.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
30. Claim 7 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 19/031,803 in view of Buttermore (US 11,648,883 B1) as applied above, further in view of Albert (US 3,530,919 A).
Regarding claim 7, the bag of the copending claims as modified above would include the bag of claim 7, but so far fails to include a cover.
Albert teaches that it was already known in the art to provide a golf bag with a cover (12). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the modified bag of the copending claims with a cover like that of Albert, the motivation being to protect the clubs during transport.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
31. Claim 8 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 19/031,803 in view of Buttermore (US 11,648,883 B1) and Albert (US 3,530,919 A) as applied above, further in view of Tan (US 6,401,890 B1).
Regarding claim 8, the bag of the copending claims as modified above would include the bag of claim 7, but so far fails to include wherein the cover comprises wheels, whereby, when the bag is vertically inverted, the wheels allow the bag to be pushed and pulled by a user. Tan teaches that it was already known in the art for a removable cover (1) like that of Albert to include wheels (13) for rolling the bag along the floor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the cover of the bag of the copending claims as modified above with wheels, the motivation being to allow a user to roll the bag along the floor, as taught by Tan.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
32. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN MATTHEW LARSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8649. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-3pm. 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.
/JUSTIN M LARSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734 7/2/26
Prosecution Insights