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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the reply filed on 7/7/2026, wherein claims 1, 4-5, 8-11 and 13 were amended, claims 14-21 are cancelled. Claims 1-13 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 10 recites "a .
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) 1, 4-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Latham (US 20060011686 A1) .
With respect to claim 1, Latham discloses an equipment bag configured to secure and protect equipment within the equipment bag, the equipment bag (10) comprising: a lid (28); a base (12, 16, 18, 20, 22) coupled to the lid and defining an internal volume between the lid and base, wherein the base comprises: a [curved] nose portion (20 with respect to page 2 [0038], see note below), a rear tail portion (16), a first perimeter wall (18) extending from the nose portion to the rear tail portion, and a second perimeter wall (22) extending from the nose portion to the rear tail portion and disposed opposite the first perimeter wall; a first coupling portion (26 on 18) coupled to the first perimeter wall; a second coupling portion (26 on 22) coupled to the second perimeter wall; and an adjustable retaining member (50) configured to releasably couple to the first coupling portion and the second coupling portion in a plurality of positions to adjust a retaining equipment length of the equipment bag to accommodate equipment with different lengths.
Although Latham did not directly disclose of a curved nose portion. It is believed this feature is taught and supported by the description. On page 2 [0032], Latham teaches of a bottom wall being circle or another “random shape”, meaning a circle bottom panel would require a curved sidewalls, i.e., a curved nose. Drawings below are included for illustration of part nomenclature. However, a bottom panel with a circle shape is the chosen configuration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of containers before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the rectangular shape as taught by Latham for the curved nose portion (due to a circle bottom panel) as disclosed by Latham since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, with the difference being the substitution of the elements. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the one known element for the other to produce a predictable result (MPEP 2143).
PNG
media_image1.png
430
354
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
400
372
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 4, Latham discloses the equipment bag of claim 1, wherein the adjustable retaining member comprises a first end (40) releasably coupled to the first coupling portion (top 26 of 18) of the first perimeter wall and a second end (other of 40) releasably coupled to the second coupling portion (top 26 of 22) of the second perimeter wall.
With respect to claim 5, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the first coupling portion of the first perimeter wall comprises a plurality of loops, and wherein the adjustable retaining member comprises a hook coupled to the first end of the adjustable retaining member and configured to couple with at least one of the plurality of loops. However, Latham did teach of hook and loop fasteners (page 2 [0033]). Latham did not teach of the respective configuration of the hooks vs the loops. However, there are only two ways to orient the hooks, either the hooks are on the perimeter wall or it is on the retainer member. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to try the claimed orientation. It would have been obvious to try to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include hooks on the retaining member and loops on the perimeter wall since there are only a finite number of predictable solutions. Either the hooks are on the perimeter wall or on the retaining member. Thus, making the hooks on the retaining member would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product was not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. See MPEP 2143.
With respect to claim 6, the references as applied to claim 5, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Latham further teaches wherein the hook extends into a first one of the plurality of loops to dispose the adjustable retaining member in a first position to retain equipment having a first equipment length. (this is inherent in the function of hook and loop fasteners. Refer to claim 5 rejection above for hook and loop placement rationale.)
With respect to claim 7, the references as applied to claim 6, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Latham further teaches wherein the hook extends into a second one of the plurality of loops to dispose the adjustable retaining member in a second position to retain equipment having a second equipment length greater than the first equipment length. (page 1 [0008], Latham teaches of a plurality of positions for the dividers. This is an inherent property of Latham’s invention)
With respect to claim 8, the references as applied to claim 6, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Latham further teaches wherein the adjustable retaining member (50) is spaced apart from the front curved nose portion in the first position. (this is inherent of Lathams invention)
With respect to claim 9, the references as applied to claim 7, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Latham further teaches wherein the adjustable retaining member is closer to the front end of the base in the second position than in the first position. (page 1 [0008], Latham teaches of a plurality of positions for the dividers. This is an inherent property of Latham’s invention)
With respect to claim 10, Latham discloses the equipment bag of claim 1, wherein the adjustable retaining member comprises a plurality of support members configured to prevent collapse of retaining members. (retainer example in figure 22 comprises a plurality of stiffening members [board 132])
Examiner Note: “to prevent collapse of retaining members” can be broadly interpreted
With respect to claim 11, Latham discloses the equipment bag of claim 4, further comprising a second adjustable retaining member comprising a first end releasably coupled to a third coupling portion (bottom 26 of 18) coupled to the first perimeter wall and a second end releasably coupled to a fourth coupling portion (bottom 26 of 22) coupled to the second perimeter wall. (page 1 [0008] teaches of multiple dividers. An identical divider would meet the claim language.)
With respect to claim 12, Latham discloses the equipment bag of claim 11, wherein the retaining equipment length extends between the adjustable retaining member and the second adjustable retaining member. (can have nomenclature of a retaining equipment length for the distance between retaining members)
Examiner Note: Previous statements of retainment length are with respect to intended function.
With respect to claim 13, Latham discloses the equipment bag of claim 12, wherein the first coupling portion of the first perimeter wall and the second coupling portion (top of 26 on 18 and 22, see note below) of the perimeter wall are disposed in the curved nose portion of the base, and the third coupling portion of the first perimeter wall and the fourth coupling portion (bottom of 26 on 18 and 22, see note below) of the second perimeter wall are disposed in the rear tail portion of the base. (All of 26 top and bottom is disposed on the nose and tail portion)
Examiner Note: The term “coupling portion” is broad. In the assembled device of Latham, on all sidewalls, the coupling feature (26) top band can be considered a singular coupling portion. The term portion allows for a broad or interpretation. Alternatively, the nose portion and rear portion can be extended to include portions of the sidewall of 18 and 22.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Latham (US 20060011686 A1) in view of Rattay (US 4428484 A) .
With respect to claim 2, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the adjustable retaining member comprises a first padded side configured to contact the equipment. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely transportation containers with dividers, Rattay taught of containers with padded dividers, in order to create a cushioned support for stored product (abstract). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dividers of Latham to be cushioned as taught by Rattay in order to allow for a cushioned relationship with product stored.
With respect to claim 3, the references as applied to claim 2, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Latham further teaches wherein the adjustable retaining member further comprises a second side comprising a pocket (42).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-20230276913-A1 OR US-20040149600-A1 OR US-20060011686-A1 OR US-20250333142-A1 OR US-20100147712-A1 OR US-20020038745-A1 OR US-20250242893-A1 OR US-20200077760-A1 OR US-20140305364-A1 OR US-20120118766-A1 OR US-20100006469-A1 OR US-20140339109-A1 OR US-20110048984-A1 OR US-20090151826-A1 OR US-10092137-B1 OR US-4428484-A OR US-9981722-B2 OR US-8794492-B2 OR US-5431265-A OR US-12344357-B1
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the amended material, Lathams readings has been adjusted to read on the claimed material. It appears that a curved nose was recited to attempt to overcome the prior art. Examiner has therefore incorporated page 2 [0032] of Latham to reject the amended material. This passage discusses a circular bottom panel. A circular bottom panel would require curved side walls.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s amendments, see claims, filed 7/7/2026, with respect to the prior drawing objections and 112b rejections overcome the prior rejections.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYMREN K SANGHERA whose telephone number is (571)272-5305. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri.
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 on (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.
/S.K.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/ERNESTO A GRANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights