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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 22, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7 and 35-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoover (US 6,161,665 A).
Regarding claim 1, Hoover teaches a structured bag for carrying items, the bag comprising:
a bag body constructed of a flexible material, said bag body comprising at least one panel (25, 26);
a plurality of elongated ribs (20, 35) constructed to be less flexible than said flexible material, at least a first pair of said plurality of ribs being positioned on said at least one panel in a spaced relationship, said spaced relationship defining an operative region promoting folding, within said operative region, of said at least one panel between an open state (FIG. 2), in which an upper portion of said at least one panel is folded downwardly at said operative region, and a closed state (FIG. 1), to form a structured closure for said bag body; and
a fastener (17) secured to said at least one panel and operable to selectively fix said at least one panel, and thus said structured closure and said bag body, in the closed state (column 2 line 55-column 4 line 24 and FIG. 1-3, 5).
Regarding claim 2, Hoover teaches the bag of claim 1 above, wherein said at least one panel defines a flap joined along one edge to a remainder of said bag body (FIG. 1-aread defined by D).
Regarding claim 3, Hoover teaches the bag of claim 1 above, wherein said plurality of elongated ribs provides physical structure to said bag to prevent unsupported sagging of said flexible material and to cause said bag to assume a predefined shape in the closed state (FIG. 1, 3).
Regarding claim 4, Hoover teaches the bag of claim 1 above, wherein each of said plurality of elongated ribs extends continuously between ends of said at least one panel (FIG. 1, 3).
Regarding claim 5, Hoover teaches the bag of claim 1 above, wherein each of said plurality of elongated ribs is elongated in a horizontal direction, and wherein each of said operative regions is defined therebetween to be elongated in the horizontal direction (FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Hoover teaches the bag of claim 1 above, wherein said bag body comprises at least one additional panel, said at least one additional panel comprising a respective plurality of elongated ribs constructed to be less flexible than said flexible material, at least a respective pair of the respective plurality of elongated ribs being joined to said at least one additional panel in said spaced relationship (column 2 line 55-column 4 line 24 and FIG. 1-3, 5).
Regarding claim 35, Hoover teaches a structured bag for carrying items, the bag comprising:
a bag body constructed of a flexible material, said bag body comprising at least one panel (25 and/or 26), said bag body having a top, a bottom, a front, a back and first and second ends (FIG 1-3);
a plurality of elongated ribs (20, 35) constructed to be less flexible than said flexible material, said plurality of ribs being positioned on an exterior surface (FIG. 5-at least one panel is internal panel 25) of said at least one panel, facing outwardly away from an internal cavity of said bag body, in a spaced relationship, said spaced relationship defining an elongated operative region promoting folding, within said operative region, of said at least one panel between an open state, in which an upper portion of said at least one panel is folded downwardly at said operative region to cause said bag body to resemble an open-top organizer (FIG. 2, 4, 5), and a closed state (FIG. 1), to form a structured closure for said bag body; and
a fastener (17) secured to said at least one panel and extending along said top and extending along at least a portion of said first and second ends at least to said elongated operative region, said fastener being operable to permit folding of said at least one panel within said operative region from said first end to said second end in the open state and to fix said at least one panel, and thus said structured closure and said bag body, in the closed state (column 2 line 55-column 4 line 24 and FIG. 1-3, 5).
Regarding claim 36, Hoover teaches the bag of claim 35 above, wherein said elongated operative region is elongated in a horizontal direction, between adjacent ribs of said plurality of ribs (FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 37, Hoover teaches the bag of claim 35 above, said bag body comprises a front panel at said front, a back panel at said back, a first end panel at said first end, and a second end panel at said second end, and wherein said fastener extends along edges of said front panel and said back panel, and along at least portions of said first end panel and said second end panel (FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 38, Hoover teaches the bag of claim 35 above, wherein said bag body comprises a front panel at said front, a back panel at said back, a first end panel at said first end, and a second end panel at said second end, and wherein said fastener extends along edges of said front panel and said back panel, and along said first end panel and said second end panel to said bottom (column 3 line 62-column 4 line 7 and FIG. 1). The “bottom” is very broadly defined in claim 35 and can include a bottom portion or bottom area. As such, the fastener of Hoover is considered to extend along said first end panel and said second end panel to said bottom. Additionally, Hoovers disclosure that height H1 is less than the height H2 would include any height that is less than H2, including a height H1 that positions terminal ends of the zipper closer to a terminal bottom edge of the first and second end panels.
Regarding claim 39, Hoover teaches the bag of claim 1 above, wherein said fastener is provided as a zipper extending along a first end of the bag body, across a top of the bag body, and along a second end of the bag body (FIG. 1-3).
Regarding claim 40, Hoover teaches the bag of claim 39 above, wherein said zipper extends from a bottom end of the first end of the bag body, along the first end of the bag body, along the top of the bag body, and along the second end of the bag body to a respective bottom end of the second end of the bag body. The “bottom end” is very broadly defined and can include a bottom area or portion of the first end and the second end. As such the fastener of Hoover is considered to extend from a bottom end of the first end of the bag body to a respective bottom end of the second end of the bag body. Additionally, Hoovers disclosure that height H1 is less than the height H2 would include any height that is less than H2, including a height H1 that positions terminal ends of the zipper closer to a terminal bottom edge of the first end and the second end of the bag body.
Claims 26-28, 30, 31 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arnold et al. (US 2,561,042 A, hereinafter Arnold).
Regarding claim 26, Arnold teaches a structured bag for carrying items, the bag comprising:
a bag body (4, 6-9) constructed of a flexible material, said bag body comprising at least one panel (FIG. 3);
a plurality of elongated ribs (15, 19, 20, 21) constructed of a material less flexible than said flexible material, at least a first rib and a second rib (20 and 21) of said plurality of elongated ribs being positioned on an exterior surface of said at least one panel (FIG. 3-at least one panel is internal panel 5), facing outwardly away from an internal cavity of said bag body, in a first spaced relationship (FIG. 3), to provide support to said flexible body in areas adjacent said first and second ribs, and to thereby define therebetween, in a region between regions adjacent said first and second ribs, a preferred operative region (space been elongated rib 20 and elongated rib 21) promoting folding of said at least one panel between an open state (FIG. 3) and a closed state (FIG. 4), to form a closure for said bag body (FIG. 3, 4); and
a fastener (29, 30) secured to said at least one panel and operable to selectively fix said closure, and thus said bag body, in the closed state (column 1 line 54-column 4 line 6 and FIG. 1-4).
Regarding claim 27, Arnold teaches the bag of claim 26 above, wherein said at least one panel defines a flap (22, 23) joined along one edge to a remainder of said bag body (column 3 lines 8-18 and FIG. 1, 4).
Regarding claim 28, Arnold teaches the bag of claim 26 above, wherein each of said plurality of elongated ribs extends continuously between ends of said at least one panel (column 2 line 28-column 3 line 18 and FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 30, Arnold teaches the bag of claim 26 above, wherein each of said plurality of elongated ribs is elongated in a horizontal direction, and wherein said preferred operative region is defined therebetween in the horizontal direction (FIG. 2, 3).
Regarding claim 31, Arnold teaches the bag of claim 26 above, wherein the bag body comprises at least one additional panel (FIG. 1, 3, 4), said at least one additional panel comprising an additional plurality of elongated ribs constructed of said material less flexible than said flexible material, at least an additional pair (20, 21) of said additional plurality of elongated ribs being joined to said at least one additional panel is spaced relationship (column 2 line 28-column 3 line 18 and FIG. 1, 3, 4).
Regarding claim 41, Arnold teaches the bag of claim 26 above, wherein each rib of said plurality of elongated ribs is positioned on the outer surface of said at least one panel (FIG. 3-at least one panel is internal panel 5).
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoover, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Hunter (US 1,513,909 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Hoover teaches the bag of claim 1 above, but fails teach at least one pocket formed on said at least one panel, said at least one pocket having a respective open top, wherein said operative region is located at a position corresponding to said open top of said at least one pocket. Hunter teaches an analogous structured bag comprising a bag body having a plurality of elongated ribs (19) and further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to provide analogous bags with at least one pocket (21) having an open top for selectively and securing storing items within the bag (page 2 lines 16-19 and Fig. 5).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Hoover by additionally providing at least one pocket having an open top formed on said at least one panel, as taught by Hunter, in order to provide the bag with a means for selectively and securely storing items within the bag.
Regarding “said operative region at a location corresponding to said open top of said at least one pocket”, this language is broad enough to encompass the combination after adding the pocket of Hunter to the bag of Hoover as “location corresponding” just means that the open top of the pocket is in similar in position as the preferred operative region as defined between a pair of ribs of Hoover. Even if the open top of the pocket is not at the same height as the operative region, it can still correspond if it is close to or adjacent. As such, placement of the pocket of Hunter on the bag of Hoover would be such that it would not interfere with the operative region between ribs (19, 20) and its function and therefore the open top of the pocket would be located adjacent or just below the rib (19) and as such, would be “correspondingly located”.
Claims 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnold, as applied to claim 26 above, in view of Hunter.
Regarding claims 32 and 33, Arnold teaches the bag of claim 26 above, but fails teach at least one pocket having an open top formed on said at least one panel, wherein said at least one pocket has a respective open top and wherein a pair of said plurality of elongated ribs is disposed on said at least one panel to define said preferred operative region at a location corresponding to said open top of said at least one pocket. Hunter teaches an analogous structured bag comprising a bag body having a plurality of elongated ribs (19) and further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to provide analogous bags with at least one pocket (21) having an open top for selectively and securing storing items within the bag (page 2 lines 16-19 and Fig. 5).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Arnold by additionally providing at least one pocket having an open top formed on said at least one panel, as taught by Hunter, in order to provide the bag with a means for selectively and securely storing items within the bag.
Regarding “said operative region at a location corresponding to said open top of said at least one pocket”, this language is broad enough to encompass the combination after adding the pocket of Hunter to the bag of Arnold as “location corresponding” just means that the open top of the pocket is in similar in position as the preferred operative region as defined between a pair of ribs of Arnold. Even if the open top of the pocket is not at the same height as the operative region, it can still correspond if it is close to or adjacent. As such, placement of the pocket of Hunter on the bag of Arnold would be such that it would not interfere with operative region between ribs (19, 20) and its function and therefore the open top of the pocket would be located adjacent or just below the rib (19) and as such, would be “correspondingly located”.
Claims 10 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoover, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Sylvester (US 2021/0085044 A1).
Regarding claims 10 and 34, Hoover teaches the bag of claim 1 above, but fails to teach at least one divider panel fixed to a first portion of said bag body, wherein said at least one divider panel terminates in a free end selectively attachable to another portion of said bag body to define at least one compartment.
Sylvester teaches an analogous structured bag and further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to provide at least one divider panel configured to keep items within the bag in place. Sylvester teaches that the at least one divider panel can be fully or partially removable and can be secured via hook and loop fasteners, snaps, latches or other means, to one or more fixed locations on the internal wall of the bag (paragraphs 35, 36, 38-42 and FIG. 3).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Hoover by additionally providing at least one divider panel fixed to a first portion of said bag body, wherein said at least one divider panel terminates in a free end selectively attachable to another portion of said bag body to define at least one compartment, as taught by Sylvester, in order to provide a means for keeping items within the bag in place.
Double Patenting
Applicant is advised that should claim 10 be found allowable, claim 34 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 16, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that Arnold fails to teach the open state in which an upper portion of said at least one panel is folded downwardly, is not persuasive.
Arnold was not intended to teach the argued limitation as the argued limitation is a new limitation not presented in the previously examined claims.
Applicant’s argument that Hoovers folding mechanism is fundamentally different from that recited in amended claim 1, is not persuasive.
Even though Hoovers upper panel portions are folded parallel to the lower portions the upper portions are folded downwardly in order to be folded parallel to the lower portions.
Applicant’s argument that amended claim 26 clarifies that the ribs must be positioned on an exterior facing surface of the bag body, is not persuasive.
Any exterior facing surface meets the language of the claim even if the surface is not the exterior most facing surface.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NINA KAY ATTEL whose telephone number is (571)270-3972. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-4PM 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, 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.
/NINA K ATTEL/ Examiner, Art Unit 3734
/NATHAN J NEWHOUSE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights