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 .
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) and (a) (2) as being anticipated by US Patent 7434683 issued to Harper (Here forth “Harper“).
Regarding claim 1, Harper discloses a foldable case for storing and transporting an implement, the foldable case (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Harper and Fig 7 of Harper) comprising:
a pair of body panels, wherein each body panel defines a first longitudinal segment, a second longitudinal segment, and a central segment defining a lateral fold axis therethrough, wherein the central segment is disposed between the first longitudinal segment and the second longitudinal segment (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Harper and Fig 7 of Harper), each of the body panels further comprising:
a flexible substrate that extends continuously through the first longitudinal segment, the central segment, and the second longitudinal segment of each body panel, and a rigid substrate coupled to the flexible substrate at only the first longitudinal segment and the second longitudinal segment of each body panel (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Harper); and
an attachment panel defining a longitudinal fold axis, wherein the attachment panel (82) is disposed between and operatively couples the pair of body panels to one another(Fig 4 of Harper, protective covering 82 has longitudinal axis that lines up with the hinge 80),
wherein the body panels are pivotable about the longitudinal fold axis to transition the foldable case between an open position and a closed position, and wherein the body panels are pivotable about the lateral fold axis to transition the foldable case to and from a portable condition (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Harper and Fig 7 of Harper).
PNG
media_image1.png
663
854
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Harper
Regarding claim 2, Harper further discloses wherein each body panel defines an outer face and an opposite inner face such that when the foldable case is in the closed position, the inner faces of the respective body panels are disposed facing one another and radially spaced apart by an interior space (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Harper).
Regarding claim 3, Harper further discloses wherein, when the foldable case is in the portable condition, the respective body panels are folded along the lateral fold axis such that the first longitudinal segments of the body panels are disposed adjacent to the second longitudinal segments of the body panels, thereby reducing an overall length of the foldable case for storage or transport (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Harper and Fig 7 of Harper).
Regarding claim 14, Harper further discloses wherein each body panel further defines a plurality of edges and a flange extending from the plurality of edges, and wherein the flange of one body panel is configured to align with the flange of the other body panel when the foldable case is in the closed position (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Harper).
Regarding claim 15, Harper further discloses further comprising a fastening element operatively coupled between the flanges of the body panels (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Harper zipper is fastening element part of attachment panel).
Regarding claim 16, Harper further disclose wherein the fastening element comprises a zipper mechanism (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Harper zipper is fastening element part of attachment panel).
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 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harper.
Regarding claim 4, Harper does not expressly disclose wherein each of the longitudinal segments has a length L1 and the central segment has a length L2, wherein the length L2 is less than the length L1.
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 case of Harper to have each of the longitudinal segments has a length L1 and the central segment has a length L2, wherein the length L2 is less than the length L1. 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 5, Harper does not expressly disclose wherein the length L2 is less than half the length L1.
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 case of Harper to have the length L2 be less than half the length L1. 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 6, Harper further discloses wherein the body panels are mirror images of one another across the longitudinal fold axis (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Harper).
Claims 7-8, 10, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harper in view of Foreign Publication GB2513458 by Teal (Here forth “Teal”).
Regarding claim 7, Harper further discloses wherein the flexible substrate comprises an exterior fabric layer (Column 3 lines 10-11 of Harper) and [Not taught: an interior fabric layer].
Harper does not expressly disclose an interior fabric layer
Teal discloses a similar bag that teaches an interior fabric layer (Page 11 Para 2 of Teal).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Harper and Teal before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the case of Harper as modified to include a cotton liner, as taught by Teal, to advantageously protect the padding from items placed within the case.
Regarding claim 8, Harper as modified includes all of the limitations including wherein the flexible substrate further comprises a padding layer disposed between the exterior fabric layer and the interior fabric layer (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Harper, padding 64).
Regarding claim 10, Harper as modified does not expressly disclose wherein the rigid substrate is positioned between the exterior fabric layer and the padding layer.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the application was filed to have the rigid substrate positioned between the exterior fabric layer and the padding layer, 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 12, Harper further discloses wherein each of the rigid substrate and the padding layer are secured to at least one of the interior fabric layer and exterior fabric layer (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Harper, rigid substrate and padding 64 are attached to exterior fabric).
Regarding claim 13, Harper further discloses wherein the rigid substrate and the padding layer are secured by one of bonding, sewing, and lamination (Column 3 Para 5 of Harper, rigid substrate is attached to the exterior fabric which is attached to the padding, by sewing).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harper in view of US Publication 2022/0386764 by Moore (Here forth “Moore”).
Regarding claim 9, Harper as modified includes all of the limitations including wherein [Not taught: the exterior fabric layer comprises a double PVC-coated polyester fabric] and the interior fabric layer comprises a single-knit cotton fabric (See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 8, Column 3 Para 5 of Harper).
Harper as modified does not expressly disclose wherein the exterior fabric layer comprises a double PVC-coated polyester fabric
Moore discloses a similar bag that teaches wherein the exterior fabric layer comprises a double PVC-coated polyester fabric (Para 71 of Harper, PVC-coated polyester fabric that is waterproof is double sided).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Harper and Moore before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the case of Harper as modified to apply the concept of an exterior fabric layer comprising a double PVC-coated polyester fabric, as taught by Moore, to advantageously prevent water from reaching the contents within if the bag is exposed to liquid.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harper and Teal in view of US Publication 2024/0132183 by Brataas (Here forth “Brataas”).
Regarding claim 11, Harper does not expressly disclose the rigid substrate comprises a thermoformed ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA) material
Brataas disclose a similar bag that teaches wherein the rigid substrate comprises a thermoformed ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA) material (Para 6 of Braatas).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Harper as modified and Brataas before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the case of Harper as modified to apply the concept of the rigid substrate comprising a thermoformed ethylene-vinyl acetate, as taught by Brataas, to advantageously prevent water from reaching the contents within if the bag is exposed to liquid.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harper in view of US Publication 2008/0047859 by Dillard (Here forth “Dillard”).
Regarding claim 17, Harper further disclose further comprising a carry system operatively coupled to the pair of body panels (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Harper), wherein the carry system comprises [Not taught: a shoulder sling] and a carry handle (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Harper).
Harper as modified does not expressly disclose a shoulder sling.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Harper and Dillard before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the case of Harper as modified to include a shoulder sling, as taught by Dillard, to advantageously allow the user to carry the bag on their shoulder to make it easier to carry.
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. 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
/ANDREW T KIRSCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights