DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 2/25/25, 8/22/25, and 5/26/26 are noted. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the examiner is considering the information disclosure statements.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 1 is objected to because the last line should read “the container and third plate”. Appropriate correction is required.
4. Claim 3 is objected to because “in a pattern on both the third plate” does not make sense. Appropriate correction is required. For the purpose of examination, “on both” does not define additional structure.
5. Claim 15 is objected to because the last line should read “dimple portions”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1, 2, 5, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Perkins et al. (US 5,732,867 A).
Regarding claim 1, Perkins discloses a quick release securing system for a container comprising: a container (12/20/22) having a flange portion (see Figure 8) extending from a bottom edge of the container; and a third plate (14/24) having a J-shaped flange portion (see proximate 52 in Figure 8) extending along an edge portion thereof, the flange portion of the container received within the J-shaped flange portion of the third plate when the container and third plates are releasably coupled together (see Figure 8).
Regarding claim 2, Perkins discloses the quick release securing system of claim 1, further comprising a quick release assembly having a biased pin member (28/56) coupled to the third plate and selectively engageable with the container in order to releasably secure the container and third plate together (see Figure 9).
Regarding claim 5, Perkins discloses the quick release securing system of claim 1, wherein the third plate (14/24) comprises a plurality of dimpled portions (24) arranged in a pattern on the third plate (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 11, Perkins discloses the quick release securing system of claim 2, wherein the container (12/20/22) comprises a lock recess/aperture (30) in a side surface (of 22) to receive the biased pin member (28/56) of the quick release assembly (see Figure 9).
Regarding claim 12, Perkins discloses a method for selectively mounting a container to a support structure comprising: providing a container (12/20/22) having a flange portion extending from a bottom edge of the container (see Figure 8); coupling a third plate (14/24) to the support structure (16), the third plate comprising a J-shaped flange portion extending along an edge portion thereof (see proximate 52 in Figure 8) and a quick release assembly coupled to the third plate (see Figure 11); coupling the container to the third plate comprising coupling the flange portion of the container within the J-shaped flange portion of the third plate; positioning a bottom surface of the container in a position engaging the third plate (see Figure 8); selectively coupling a biased pin member (28/56) of the quick release assembly with a lock recess/aperture (30) of the container to secure the container to the third plate (see Figure 9); and selectively releasing the biased pin member from the lock recess/aperture of the container to remove the container from the third plate (by pulling cord 40, see col. 2 lines 27-42).
Regarding claim 13, Perkins discloses the method of claim 12, further comprising after removing the container from the third plate, repositioning the container against the third plate (see “re-attached” in col. 1 line 32).
Regarding claim 14, Perkins discloses the method of claim 13, further comprising withdrawing the pin against its bias in order to receive the container against the third plate. Perkins discloses pulling cord 40 to move the bin 28/56 against its bias. The remaining limitation “in order to receive the container against the third plate” is a functional capability resulting from the method step of withdrawing the pin. At the point of pulling the cord 40 and withdrawing the pin 28/56, a user of the Perkins system could choose to either remove or install the container on the third plate.
Regarding claim 15, Perkins discloses the method of claim 14, wherein releasably coupling the container with the third plate comprises automatically aligning the container with the third plate in response to protrusions (22) of the container engaging dimple portions (24) of the third plate.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. Claims 3, 4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins et al. (US 5,732,867 A) in view of Grunberger (US 4,088,252 A).
Regarding claim 3, Perkins discloses the quick release securing system of claim 1, but fails to further disclose a plurality of longitudinal slots arranged in a pattern on the third plate in order to enable the third plate to be selectively mounted to a support structure (mounting structure not currently being claimed in combination). Grunberger teaches that it was already known in the art for a plate (12) like that of Perkins to include longitudinal slots (14) to which the shoulder straps can be attached. Given that Perkins is silent as to how his shoulder straps (16) are attached to the plate (14), 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 strap-to-plate connections and chosen to provide the Perkins plate with longitudinal slots like those of Grunberger in order to attach the shoulder straps thereto.
Regarding claim 4, Perkins as modified above would include the quick release securing system of claim 3, wherein the third plate is coupled to the support structure (support structure now being claimed in combination, Perkins disclose support structure 16).
Regarding claim 6, Perkins discloses the quick release securing system of claim 5, but fails to disclose wherein the plurality of dimpled portions are arranged to extend outwardly from a rear surface of the third plate.
Regarding claim 7, Perkins fails to disclose the quick release securing system of claim 6, and also fails to disclose wherein the plurality of dimpled portions extends outwardly from the rear surface of the third plate towards the support structure.
While Perkins includes apertures (24) which read on the broadly claimed “dimpled portions” of claim 5, these apertures do not extend outwardly as presently claimed. Otherwise, Perkins appears to show the plate (14) being completely flat but discloses no criticality to such design. Grunberger teaches that it was already known for a plate portions against a user’s back to include dimpled portions (see Figures) arranged in a pattern to create airflow channels (12,13) against a user’s back, these dimpled portions extending outwardly from a rear surface of the plate towards the support structure shoulder straps (see Figures). 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 third plate of Perkins with outwardly extending dimpled portions, as taught by Grunberger, the motivation being to create airflow channels for ventilating a user’s back.
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 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,890,996. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the presently recited structure or equivalents thereof are also recited in the patented claims. Regarding claim 1, the container and second plate secured thereto of patented claim 1 are equivalent to the presently claimed container. Regarding claims 2-11, see patented claims 2-13. Regarding claim 12, the container and second plate secured thereto of patented claim 14 are equivalent to the presently claimed container. Regarding claims 13-15, see patented claims 15-17.
16. Claims 1, 2, 5-7, and 12-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,637,018. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the presently recited structure or equivalents thereof are also recited in the patented claims. Regarding claim 1, patented claims 1 and 6 functionally recite use with a container such that it would be obvious to use the patented invention in the manner functionally claimed, i.e. in combination with a container. Regarding claim 2, see patented claim 6. Regarding claims 5-7, see patented claim 3. Regarding claims 12-15, patented claims 1 and 6 functionally recite use with a container such that it would be obvious to use the patented invention in the method steps presently claimed, i.e. in combination with a container and used according to their basic function.
Allowable Subject Matter
17. Claims 8-10 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims along with the filing of any necessary Terminal Disclaimer(s).
Conclusion
18. 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 8/6/26
Prosecution Insights