DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
Applicant’s arguments filed on December 16, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The previous claim objections and 112 rejections have been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 26, 27, 30, 31, 33, 35 and 37 have been amended. Claims 6, 9 and 11-25 have been cancelled. Claims 38-41 have been added. Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10 and 26-41 remain pending in the application.
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 Objections
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2, “an external surface” should be --the outer surface--.
Claim 37 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2, “said front end” should be --said front--, and
In line 2, “said back end” should be --said back--.
Claim 38 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2, “said front end” should be --said front--, and
In line 2, “said back end” should be --said back--.
In line 5, “said bottom end” should be --said bottom--.
Claim 41 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2, “the outer portion” should be --the outer surface--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 26-31, 35-37, 39 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 1, 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;
a plurality of elongated ribs (15, 19, 20, 21) constructed of a material less flexible than said flexible material, at least a first pair (20 and 21) of said plurality of ribs being positioned on said at least one panel in a spaced relationship (FIG. 3), said spaced relationship defining an operative region (space been elongated rib 20 and elongated rib 21) promoting folding, within said operative region, of said at least one panel between an open state (FIG. 3) and a closed state (FIG. 4), to form a structured closure for said bag (FIG. 3, 4); and
a fastener (29, 30) 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 1 line 54-column 4 line 6 and FIG. 1-4).
Regarding claim 2, Arnold teaches the bag of claim 1 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 3, Arnold 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 (column 2 line 28-column 3 line 18).
Regarding claim 4, Arnold 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 (column 2 line 28-column 3 line 18 and FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Arnold teaches the bag of claim 1 above, wherein each of said plurality of ribs is elongated in a horizontal direction, and wherein each of said operative regions is defined therebetween in the horizontal direction (FIG. 2, 3).
Regarding claim 7, Arnold teaches the bag of claim 1 above, wherein said bag body comprises at least one additional panel, the at least one panel comprises at least two panels (FIG. 1, 3, 4), 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 (20, 21) of the respective plurality of elongated ribs being joined to said at least one additional panel in said spaced relationship (column 2 line 28-column 3 line 18 and FIG. 1, 3, 4).
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 outer surface of said at least one panel (FIG. 3-at least one panel is internal panel 5) 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 29, Arnold teaches the bag of claim 26 above, wherein each of said plurality of elongated ribs is attached to the outer surface of said at least one panel (FIG. 3-at least one panel is internal panel 5).
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 35, 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, said bag body having a top, a bottom, a front, a back and first and second ends (FIG. 1-4);
a plurality of elongated ribs (15, 19, 20, 21) constructed of a material less flexible than said flexible material, said plurality of elongated ribs being positioned on an outer surface (FIG. 3-at least one panel is internal panel 5) of said at least one panel in a spaced relationship (FIG. 3, 4), said spaced relationship defining an elongated operative region (space been elongated rib 20 and elongated rib 21) promoting folding (FIG. 3, 4), within said elongated operative region, of said at least one panel between an open state and a closed state, to form a structured closure for said bag (FIG. 3, 4); and
a fastener (29, 30) 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 operative region (FIG. 1), said fastener being operable to permit folding of said at least one panel within said operative region form said first end to said second end in the open state, and to fix said at least one panel, and thus said structure closure and said bag body, in the closed state (column 1 line 54-column 4 line 6 and FIG. 1-4).
Regarding claim 36, Arnold 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. 2, 3).
Regarding claim 37, Arnold 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 at least portion of said first end panel and said second end panel (FIG. 1-the zipper extends along portion of said first end panel and said second end panel when ends of the zipper and bag body extend downward).
Regarding claim 39, Arnold 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-the zipper extends along a first end of the bag body and along a second end of the bag body when ends of the zipper and bag body extend downward).
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).
Claims 1, 35 and 38-40 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) 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 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 outer surface (FIG. 5-at least one panel is internal panel 25) of said at least one panel 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 (FIG. 2) 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 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 in claim 39 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.
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.
Claims 8 and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnold, as applied to claims 1 and 26 above, in view of Hunter (US 1,513,909 A1).
Regarding claims 8 and 32-33, Arnold teaches the bag of claims 1 and 26 above, but fails teach at least one pocket having an open top formed on said at least one panel. 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 claim 33 and “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 of 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 Arnold, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Sylvester (US 2021/0085044 A1).
Regarding claims 10 and 34, Arnold 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 Arnold 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).
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).
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).
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.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,336,609 (reference patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 under examination is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference patent. Every limitation in the claim under examination is recited in the reference patent claim. The only different between the claim under examination and the reference patent claim being that the reference patent defines a second pair of said plurality of elongated ribs, a second spaced relationship and a preferred operative region.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,336,609 (reference patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 under examination is anticipated by claim 2 of the reference patent. Every limitation in the claim under examination is recited in the reference patent claim. The only different between the claim under examination and the reference patent claim being that the reference patent defines at least one pocket, a second pair of said plurality of elongated ribs, a second spaced relationship and a preferred operative region.
Claims 26, 32 and 33 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,336,609 (reference patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 26, 32 and 33 under examination are anticipated by claim 2 of the reference patent. Every limitation in the claim under examination is recited in the reference patent claim. The only different between the claim under examination and the reference patent claim being that the reference patent defines a second pair of said plurality of elongated ribs, a second spaced relationship and a preferred operative region.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 16, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that Arnold is devoid of any disclosure of a plurality of elongated ribs that are arranged in a spaced relationship defining an operative region that promotes folding within the operative region to form a structured closure for the bag body, is not persuasive.
Arnold discloses a plurality of elongated ribs that include a pair (20, 21) arranged in a spaced relationship defining an operative region (space been elongated rib 20 and elongated rib 21) that promotes folding within the operative region to form a structure closure (FIG. 1, 4) for the bag body.
Applicants argument that the zipped/closed and unzipped/open states of the fastener are completely independent of the folding of the sidewall between the stiffening sheets, is not persuasive.
The zipped/closed and unzipped/open states of the fastener are not independent of the folding of the sidewall between the stiffening sheets. The operative region between elongated rib 20 and elongated rib 21 promotes folding between an open state as shown in figure 3 and a closed state as shown in figures 1 and 4. However, when the fastener is engaged in the closed state folding within the operative region between the closed state and the open state cannot be achieved. Accordingly, the elongated ribs 20 and 21 form a structured closure for the bag body.
As stated previously in the Final Rejection of Application 17/517318, while the spacing between stiffening sheets 19 and 20 and between stiffening sheets 15 and 19 allow the bag to expand and contract depending upon a greater or lesser degree of contents placed in the bag body, the spacing between stiffening sheets 20 and 21 merely allows for promoting folding between an open state (FIG. 3) and a closed state (FIG. 4). When the bag is in the closed state with the fastener engaged (FIG. 4), the bag body cannot be further expanded upward at the position between stiffening sheets 20 and 21.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 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