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 with traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 1/23/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that a search burden does not exist between the species. This is not found persuasive because the alternate species are completely different types of backpacks with completely different arrangement of elements, functions, etc. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant has cited an excessive number of references within the Information Disclosure Statements. Applicant is kindly reminded of their duty of disclosure, and that burying a material reference can be considered inequitable conduct. In order to avoid the appearance of burying a material reference, the Applicant is asked to comply with MPEP 2004, item 13 which states "It is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. Eliminate clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant’s attention and/or are known to be of most significance. See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), aff’d, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1974). But cf. Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1995).”
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the seat being spaced apart from the bottom panel and provided at the angle range recited in claim 1 built into claim 6 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Additionally, the contouring strap of claim 9 must be identified. Additionally, the internal frame of claim 17 must be identified.
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.
Claims 3 and 17-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
Regarding claim 3, the limitations are indefinite because applicant’s specification does not describe and the figures do not show an internal frame extending through a seat.
Regarding claim 17, it is unclear whether the internal frame of second to last line is the same internal frame from the fourth to last line, or an alternate/additional internal frame.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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(s) 1-11 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson US 20180139922.
Regarding claim 1, Watson teaches a pet-carrying backpack comprising:
a front panel, a rear panel, and side panels forming an interior of the pet-carrying backpack which is configured to hold a pet therein (clearly seen throughout the figures);
shoulder straps disposed on and extending from the front panel (108 figure 1);
at least one paw hole disposed on the front panel above the shoulder straps, the at least one paw hole accommodating a paw or leg of the pet held within the interior (148 figure 1);
a collar forming an opening at a top of the pet-carrying backpack configured to allow a head of the pet to protrude therethrough (146/153 figure 2); and
a pet-carrying seat configured to support the pet within the interior, the pet-carrying seat disposed at a bottom of the interior and at an angle relative to a plane perpendicular to the front panel, the angle being substantially between 5 and 45 degrees (the seat being a bottom panel arranged as recited in the annotated figure 2 below);
but does not specify exactly 5 and 45 degrees.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such values/ranges, in order to simply meet design preferences for various sized/shaped pets to carry; since discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art.
PNG
media_image1.png
760
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Watson teaches the pet-carrying backpack of claim 1, wherein the angle is between 10 and 30 degrees (see claim 1 rejection).
Regarding claim 3, Watson teaches the pet-carrying backpack of claim 1, further comprising an internal frame, at least a portion of the internal frame extending through the pet-carrying seat (figure 7 as best understood by the Examiner).
Regarding claim 4, Watson teaches the pet-carrying backpack of claim 1, wherein the pet-carrying seat comprises a padded material (claim 1 describes “a pet carrying platform disposed on or within the bottom panel, the pet carrying platform comprising a frame member and a pad member”.)
Regarding claim 5, Watson teaches the pet-carrying backpack of claim 1, wherein the pet-carrying seat is formed on or within a bottom panel of the pet-carrying backpack (see claim 1 rejection).
Regarding claim 6, Watson teaches the pet-carrying backpack of claim 1, wherein the pet-carrying seat is formed within the pet-carrying backpack to be spaced apart from a bottom panel of the pet- carrying backpack (144 figure 7), the pet-carrying backpack comprising a lower storage compartment below the pet-carrying seat that is separate from the interior configured to hold the pet therein (also shown in figure 7 where the seat being spaced apart from the bottom panel has now inherently provided the recited storage compartment);
but does not describe the seat at the angle ranged described in claim 1.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such values/ranges, in order to simply meet design preferences for various sized/shaped pets to carry; since discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. Furthermore, applicant describes such arrangement as merely optional; therefore, it is clear that this particular arrangement is not critical towards the novelty of the invention.
Regarding claim 7, Watson teaches a set of pet-carrying backpacks, each of the pet-carrying backpacks being a pet-carrying backpack according to claim 6, wherein a first pet-carrying seat of a first pet-carrying backpack of the set of pet-carrying backpacks is disposed at a first distance from a first bottom panel of the first pet-carrying backpack and a second pet-carrying seat of a second pet-carrying backpack of the set of pet-carrying backpacks is disposed at a second distance from a second bottom panel of the second pet-carrying backpack, the second distance being greater than the first distance (see claim 6 rejection and Watson’s paragraph 0039); where it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide numerous backpacks, in order to accommodate multiple pets of various sizes; since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Regarding claim 8, Watson teaches the pet-carrying backpack of claim 6, further comprising waist straps connected to the pet-carrying backpack adjacent to the lower storage compartment (122 figures 8B-8C).
Regarding claim 9, Watson teaches the pet-carrying backpack of claim 1, further comprising at least one contouring strap that is configured to shape the pet-carrying backpack (398 figure 17).
Regarding claim 10, Watson teaches the pet-carrying backpack of claim 9, wherein the at least one contouring strap comprises at least one adjustment strap disposed over at least one of the side panels, the at least one adjustment strap being oriented diagonally (paragraph 0004); but does not specify relative to a seam between the front panel and the at least one of the side panels.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such orientation to the diagonal strap, in order to meet design preferences for a particular type of user/pet; since shifting the position of the strap would not have modified the operation of the device in an unknown manner.
Regarding claim 11, Watson teaches the pet-carrying backpack of claim 10, but does not specify wherein an angle of the diagonal orientation of the at least one adjustment strap is between 25 degrees and 65 degrees.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such values/ranges, in order to simply meet design preferences for various sized/shaped pets to carry; since discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 17, Watson teaches a pet-carrying backpack comprising:
a front panel, a rear panel, and side panels forming an interior of the pet-carrying backpack configured to hold a pet therein; shoulder straps disposed on and extending from the front panel; at least one paw hole disposed on the front panel above the shoulder straps, the at least one paw hole accommodating a paw or leg of the pet held within the interior; a collar forming an opening at a top of the pet-carrying backpack configured to allow a head of the pet to protrude therethrough (see previous rejections); and
a padded seat comprising an internal frame, the padded seat configured to support the pet within the interior (paragraph 0037),
the padded seat disposed at a bottom of the interior (relatively shown in figure 7) and
supported by the internal frame (paragraph 0031)
at an angle relative to a plane perpendicular to the front panel, the angle being between 5 and 45 degrees (see claim 1 rejection).
Regarding claim 18, Watson teaches the pet-carrying backpack of claim 17, wherein the padded seat is formed on or within a bottom panel of the pet-carrying backpack (see previous rejections).
Regarding claim 19, Watson teaches the pet-carrying backpack of claim 17, wherein the padded seat is formed within the pet-carrying backpack to be spaced apart from a bottom panel of the pet- carrying backpack, the pet-carrying backpack comprising a lower storage compartment below the padded seat that is separate from the interior configured to hold the pet therein (see previous rejections).
Regarding claim 20, Watson teaches a set of pet-carrying backpacks, each of the pet-carrying backpacks being a pet-carrying backpack according to claim 19, wherein a first padded seat of a first pet- carrying backpack of the set of pet-carrying backpacks is disposed at a first distance from a first bottom panel of the first pet-carrying backpack and a second padded seat of a second pet- carrying backpack of the set of pet-carrying backpacks is disposed at a second distance from a second bottom panel of the second pet-carrying backpack, the second distance being greater than the first distance (see previous rejections).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-7889. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:00am to 4:30pm MST.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached at (571)272-6886. 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.
/JESSICA B WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644