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 .
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 first second and third portions, and lateral and medial side must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
second engagement feature configured to engage the first engagement feature in claim 1;
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 3-5 and 8 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.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “wherein the first and second portions of the shell are spaced apart from a lateral side and a medial side of the shell by a first distance”. It’s unclear how to determine what side is the lateral side and medial side are and how they would both be the same first distance. The examiner is confused as to how they first distance can be the same for the lateral and medial side and how thick the shell wall is for the medial side to be equal to the lateral side. For purposes of examination the examiner is interpreting the lateral side to be the side pointed out in Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Moscowitz and the claim to mean “ wherein the first and second portions of the shell are spaced apart from a lateral side of the shell by a first distance”.
Regarding claim 4, the first and second portions of the shell are spaced apart from a lateral side and a medial side of the shell by a first distance. It is unclear what is considered the “lateral side and medial side”. For purposes of examination, the examiner is considering the lateral side to be the side marked lateral side on the Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Moscowitz below.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites “the handle mechanism is recessed further into the shell than the plurality of legs when the plurality of legs are in the retracted position”. It is unclear what this means as the handle mechanism and legs are not recessed into shell but rather fit within the recesses in the shell The examiner is interpreting this to mean “the central recessed region for the handle goes further into the shell than the plurality of recesses for the plurality of legs when the plurality of legs are in the retracted position”.
Claim 5 is rejected due to its dependency.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2022/0378160 by Moskowitz (Here forth “Moskowitz”) in view of US Publication 2019/0298022 by Shechter (Here forth “Shechter”) in view of Foreign Publication WO 03/053186 by Rodges (Here forth “Rodgers”).
Regarding claim 1, Moskowitz discloses a bag (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Moskowitz) comprising:
a body (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Moskowitz);
a shell coupled to the body (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Moskowitz), [Not taught: wherein the shell comprises a central recessed region and a plurality of recessed regions disposed along the central recessed region];
a leg mechanism comprising (i) a plurality of legs comprising a first leg pivotably coupled to a first portion of the shell and a second leg pivotably coupled to a second portion of the shell (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Moskowitz; the first and second portions of the shell are spaced apart by a distance that is greater than the first width and the second width)and (ii) a cross member extending between the first leg and the second leg (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Moskowitz), wherein the plurality of legs are pivotable between (1) a retracted position in which the plurality of legs are [Not taught: positioned entirely within the plurality of recessed regions] and (2) an extended position in which one or more end portions of the plurality of legs are positioned outside of the plurality of recessed regions (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Moskowitz and Fig 2 of Moskowitz);
a handle mechanism (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Moskowitz) comprising (i) a first handle portion (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Moskowitz) with a first end [Not taught: pivotably] coupled to a third portion of the shell (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Moskowitz) and (ii) a second handle portion [Not taught: pivotably] coupled to a second end of the first handle portion (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Moskowitz), [Not taught: wherein the second handle portion comprises a first engagement feature that is pivotable relative to the first handle portion, wherein the handle mechanism is configured to pivot between (1) a first position in which the first handle portion and the second handle portion are disposed entirely within the central recessed region] and (2) a second position in which the second handle portion and the second end of the first handle portion are positioned outside of the central recessed region (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Moskowitz); and
a linking member connecting the first handle portion to the cross member (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Moskowitz), wherein the [Not taught: linking] member comprises a second engagement feature configured to engage the first engagement feature in order to lock the plurality of legs in the extended position (Fig 8 of Moskowitz, the cross member comprises a second engagement feature is a pin 25 that engages the first engagement feature as it is connected to the shell that is attached to the first engagement feature, therefore the first engagement feature is indirectly engaged to the second engagement feature; the pin and holes lock the legs in various extended positions so the legs don’t extend beyond what it is locked at).
PNG
media_image1.png
479
823
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Moskowitz
Moskowitz does not expressly disclose a central recessed region and a plurality of recessed regions.
Shechter disclose a similar bag that teaches the plurality of legs are positioned entirely within the plurality of recessed regions; a first position in which the first handle portion and the second handle portion are disposed entirely within the central recessed region (Fig 1A of Shechter, the handle 42+handle guides 48 fit within a central recessed region and central leg 54 fits entirely within a recessed region; an upper edge is the top most edge of the central recessed region is configured to extend along an upper edge of the shell; Examiner Annotated Fig 1A of Shechter, wherein the upper edge of the central recessed region is positioned a first distance from the upper edge of the shell, and wherein an upper edge of the plurality of recessed regions is positioned a second distance from the upper edge of the shell; the first distance is less than the second distance); wherein the handle mechanism is configured to pivot between (1) a first position in which the first handle portion and the second handle portion are disposed entirely within the central recessed region and (2) a second position in which the second handle portion and the second end of the first handle portion are positioned outside of the central recessed region (Fig 1A-1B of Shechter).
PNG
media_image2.png
556
533
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig 1A of Shechter
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Moskowitz and Shechter before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the bag of Moskowitz to include the concept of a central recessed region and plurality of leg recesses within which the handle and legs fit within, as taught by Shechter, to advantageously protect the handle and legs from damage when not in use.
Rodgers disclose a similar bag handle that teaches wherein the second handle portion comprises a first engagement feature that is pivotable relative to the first handle portion (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Rodgers, first engagement feature is portion between allows the second handle portion to pivot about the first handle portion; the first handle portion has a first width and the second handle portion has a second width that is equal to the first width; the first and second portions of the shell are spaced apart by a distance that is greater than the first width and the second width; a latch mechanism/button 6 configured to engage and lock the handle mechanism in the first position; the latch mechanism/button 6 comprises a deflectable member/spring 7 with a notched region configured to engage a distal end of the second handle portion; the latch mechanism comprises a cantilevered member 6 extending through the central recessed region when handle is retracted in the modified Moskowitz).
PNG
media_image3.png
282
559
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner Annotated Fig 12 of Fisher
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Moskowitz as modified and Rodgers before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the bag of the modified Moskowitz to have the second handle portion comprise a first engagement feature that allow the second handle portion to pivot relative to the first handle portion, as taught by Rodgers, to advantageously allow the handle to rotate according to the user’s needs.
Additionally, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bag of the modified Moskowitz to have the dimensions of the first and second widths be equal. Such a modification involves only a difference in recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device. Such modification would involve no change in function (see MPEP 2144.04). Further Applicant has not disclosed criticality for the claimed dimensions.
Moscowitz as modified does not expressly disclose the second engagement feature as being attached to the linking member instead of the cross member.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the application was filed to have the second engagement feature be attached to the linking member instead of the cross member, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 2, Moskowitz as modified includes all of the limitations including wherein the first handle portion has a first width and the second handle portion has a second width that is equal to the first width (See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 1; Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Rodgers).
Regarding claim 3, Moskowitz as modified includes all of the limitations including wherein the first and second portions of the shell are spaced apart by a distance that is greater than the first width and the second width (See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 1; Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Moskowitz).
Regarding claim 4, Moskowitz further discloses wherein the first and second portions of the shell are spaced apart from a lateral side and a medial side of the shell by a first distance (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Moskowitz).
Regarding claim 5, Moskowitz further discloses wherein the third portion of the shell is spaced apart from the lateral and medial sides of the shell by a second distance that is greater than the first distance (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Moskowitz).
Regarding claim 6, Moskowitz further discloses wherein the second end of the first handle portion is disposed above the first portion of the shell and the second portion of the shell when the plurality of legs are in the retracted position (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Moskowitz and Fig 2 of Moskowitz).
Regarding claim 7, Moskowitz further discloses wherein the second handle portion is disposed above the first and second portions of the shell when the plurality of legs are in the retracted position (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Moskowitz and Fig 2 of Moskowitz).
Regarding claim 8, Moskowitz as modified does not expressly disclose wherein the handle mechanism is recessed further into the shell than the plurality of legs when the plurality of legs are in the retracted position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bag of the modified Moskowitz to have the dimensions of the recess be such that the recess that the handle fits within is recessed further into the shell than the recesses the legs fit within. Such a modification involves only a difference in recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device. Such modification would involve no change in function (see MPEP 2144.04). Further Applicant has not disclosed criticality for the claimed dimensions.
Regarding claim 9, Moskowitz as modified does not expressly disclose wherein the central recessed region has a different length, width, and/or depth than the plurality of recessed regions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bag of the modified Moskowitz to have the dimensions of the central recessed region be a different length, width, or depth than the plurality of recessed regions. Such a modification involves only a difference in recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device. Such modification would involve no change in function (see MPEP 2144.04). Further Applicant has not disclosed criticality for the claimed dimensions.
Regarding claim 10, Moskowitz as modified includes all the limitations including wherein an upper edge of the central recessed region is configured to extend along an upper edge of the shell (Examiner Annotated Fig 1A of Moskowitz).
Regarding claim 11, Moskowitz as modified includes all of the limitations including wherein the upper edge of the central recessed region is positioned a first distance from the upper edge of the shell, and wherein an upper edge of the plurality of recessed regions is positioned a second distance from the upper edge of the shell (See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 1; Examiner Annotated Fig 1A of Shechter).
Regarding claim 12, Moskowitz as modified includes all of the limitations including wherein the first distance is less than the second distance (See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 1; Examiner Annotated Fig 1A of Shechter).
Regarding claim 13, Moskowitz as modified includes all of the limitations including further comprising a latch mechanism configured to engage and lock the handle mechanism in the first position (See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 1; Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Rodgers, button 6) .
Regarding claim 14, Moskowitz as modified includes all of the limitations including wherein the latch mechanism comprises a deflectable member with a notched region configured to engage a distal end of the second handle portion (See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 1, Fig 5 of Rodgers, spring 7 has notch).
Regarding claim 15, Moskowitz as modified includes all of the limitations including wherein the latch mechanism comprises a cantilevered member extending through the central recessed region (See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 1, Fig 5 of Rodgers).
Regarding claim 16, Moskowitz as modified includes all of the limitations including wherein the latch mechanism is disposed entirely within the central recessed region (See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 1, Fig 5 of Rodgers).
Regarding claim 17, Moskowitz as modified includes all of the limitations including wherein the linking member is disposed entirely within the central recessed region when the plurality of legs are in the retracted position (See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 1, Fig 5 of Rodgers).
Regarding claim 18, Moscowitz further discloses wherein the linking member comprises a first end that is pivotably coupled to the first handle portion (Examiner Annotated fig 1 of Moscowitz) and a second end that is pivotably coupled to the cross member(Examiner Annotated fig 1 of Moscowitz).
Regarding claim 19, Moscowitz further disclose wherein the second engagement feature of the linking member comprises one or more protrusions (Fig 8 of Moscowitz, couplings 22A and 24A).
Regarding claim 20, Moscowitz wherein the second engagement feature of the linking member comprises a slot or an opening extending through the linking member (Fig 8 of Moscowitz, couplings 22A and 24A fit into member 35).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA KAVINI TAMIL whose telephone number is (571)272-6655. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-5:00pm.
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 Jenness can be reached at 571-270-5055 2142. 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 KAVINI TAMIL/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 22 June 2026
Prosecution Insights