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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I (claims 1-13) in the reply filed on 1/29/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 14-21 are withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in figure 2, item label 120 and item label 140 appear to be pointing at the same feature. Item 120 appears to be associated with a different features in figures 5-6C. 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 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 1-13 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.
The term “a perimeter wall” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. From drawings, it would appear that the perimeter wall is not continuous and interrupted by the front end and the rear end. The front end and rear end are introduced in claim 1 as features that are distinct from the perimeter wall. Due to this limitation, there are two perimeter walls in the claimed invention that extend between the front and rear end. Dependent claims 4-9 and 11-13 discuss two sides of the perimeter wall. For the purposes of examination, it shall be interpreted that multiple, non-continuous walls can compose the perimeter wall. Claims 2-13 directly or indirectly depend from claim 1 and are also rejected.
The term “stiffening member” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “stiffening member” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What are the bounds and metes of a stiffening member? Although the specification lists qualified materials, it also broadly states "other qualified materials". It is unclear what would be considered another "qualified material". For example, if cushioned material is packed tight enough, could it be considered a stiff material? If so, the padded material of claim 2 could qualify. Can anything capable of maintaining an erect position be considered stiff? For the purposes of examination, stiffening member shall be broadly interpreted.
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, 4, 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by 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 front end (20) disposed in a nose portion (20 with some 22, 18) of the base, a rear end (16) disposed in a tail portion (16 with some 22, 18) of the base, a perimeter wall (18, 22) extending around an edge of the base between the front end and the rear end; and an adjustable retaining member (50) configured to releasably couple to the base in a plurality of positions to adjust a retaining equipment length of the equipment bag to accommodate equipment with different lengths .
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 a first coupling portion (top 26 of 18) of the perimeter wall of the base and a second end (other of 40) releasably coupled to a second coupling portion (top 26 of 22) of the perimeter wall.
With respect to claim 10, Latham discloses the equipment bag of claim 1, wherein the adjustable retaining member comprises a plurality of stiffening members. (retainer example in figure 22 comprises a plurality of stiffening members [board 132])
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) of the perimeter wall of the base and a second end releasably coupled to a fourth coupling portion (bottom 26 of 22) of the 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 and second coupling portions (top of 26 on 18 and 22) of the perimeter wall are disposed in the nose portion of the base, and the third and fourth coupling portions (bottom of 26 on 18 and 22) of the perimeter wall are disposed in the tail portion of the base. (All of 26 is disposed on the nose and tail portion)
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) 2-3 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).
Claim(s) 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Latham (US 20060011686 A1) .
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 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 end of the base 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)
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
Conclusion
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.
/SYMREN K SANGHERA/Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights