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 .
Note that the elected embodiment does not have support the elected species and at least claims 10, and 19 in the priority document 63/684122.
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 following claimed features must be shown, without entering any new matter: all of the tether in claims 12 and 19 including the combination, all of the fasteners in claim 16 including the claimed combinations.
Claims 5-7, 9, 18, and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration. Applicant made the election of Group I, directed to a sleeve with spine attachment, with traverse and to the embodiment in figures 5A-5C, with traverse, in the response dated 03/06/2026 is acknowledged.
PNG
media_image1.png
784
767
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant traverses that the inventions groups I, II and III. Applicant asserts that the Patent Office has not offered any basis for the restriction of Group IV from Groups I, II, and III, and the Patent Office has offered only the conclusory statement that "each subcombination has separate utility," without explaining what such separate utility might be. Mere conclusory statements cannot support a restriction requirement The Applicant respectfully traverses the need for the species election, as the required species elections are in excess of any need to streamline prosecution and avoid unwarranted examination or search burdens.
Applicant is noted:
35 U.S.C. 121.
“If two or more independent and distinct inventions are claimed in one application, the Director may require the application to be restricted to one of the inventions.”
MPEP 803 [R-3] Restriction — When Proper
Under the statute, the claims of an application may properly be required to be restricted to one of two or more claimed inventions only if they are able to support separate patents and they are either independent (MPEP § **> 802.01, § 806.06, and § 808.01<) or distinct (MPEP § 806.05 - § *> 806.05(j)<).
MPEP, Form-Paragraph-Chapter-800
¶ 8.01 Election of Species; Species Claim(s) Present
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species [1]. The species are independent or distinct because [2]:
…..
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 1, identify the species and/or grouping(s) of patentably indistinct species from which an election is to be made. The species may be identified as the species of figures 1, 2, and 3, for example, or the species of examples I, II, and III, respectively. (emphasis added)
The examiner submits regarding the restriction, it is noted that when there are more than one invention, 35 U.S.C. 121 allows the application to be restricted to one of the inventions.
Regarding the subcombination, as set forth above, Group I is very specific to class 402/73, now class b42f13/0093-13/10, and there are 5703 references to go through.
PNG
media_image2.png
76
579
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Group II directed to pockets structure classified in 150/112-117, 190/109-111, now a45c13/02-2013/28, and there are 5703 references to go through.
PNG
media_image3.png
85
580
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Group III directed to attachment with another to be searched in class 150/111 and 190/108 ,now A45C7/0045 , and there are 1817 references to go through.
PNG
media_image4.png
81
591
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Group IV directed to the closing structure, to be searched in classes 150/118, 190/119, 903, and a45c3/00, and there are 5786 references to go through.
PNG
media_image5.png
75
582
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Clearly there is burden of search on the examiner.
Regarding the species, the examiner submits there are numerous species of strap and attachments, each claimed species must be search in various classes including A45C13/00, B42F, and fastener class in class 224 now A42F, and there is a burden of search/examination on the examiner and note the MPEP allows the examiner to list the species according to disclosed embodiments as set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The recitation “at least one tether is selected from the group consisting of a strap, a cable, a cord, a wire, a ring, a track, and combinations thereof.” Claim 12 is dependent to claim 10 which requires a first end of the tether to the first support section of the articulated spine and at a second end of the tether to the second support section of the articulated spine such that the at least one tether extends over at least a portion of the first support section, across the flexion region, and over at least a portion of the second support section. The specification does not describe at least the ring capable of limitations in claim 10. Also, there is no disclosure of any combinations that enable to one or ordinary skill in the art. See drawing objections above.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 14 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.
Regarding claim 4, the recitation “the at least one fastener is equal in number to the at least one sleeve guide” is confusing. Note that claim 1 recites a plurality of sleeves with the sleeves would have more fasteners than the sleeve guide, please explain.
Claim 14 recites “the sleeve.” The antecedent basis in claim 1 is a plurality of sleeves. It’s unclear what sleeve of the plurality sleeves is the sleeve. Should be changed to “each sleeve”.
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 1-4, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rodrigues (11503888).
PNG
media_image6.png
788
691
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
974
782
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(29) Alternatively, the walls 1-6 of the case 11 could be made of a metal alloy or plastic. These more rigid materials may require an alternative closure device, such as latches. In addition, the case 11 could have a different shape than that of a rectangular parallelepiped.
Regarding claim 1, Rodrigues a baggage sleeve packing system (fig.14 , comprising a support structure, including: an articulated spine (the hinged portion at 15B) including a first support section (311) attached adjacent to a second support (311) section via a flexion region (15B) along a length of the articulated spine; and at least one sleeve guide (316) disposed on or in the articulated spine; and a plurality of sleeves (100A-AA), each of the plurality of sleeves including: at least one storage compartment; and a binding edge (154) along a length of the sleeve, the binding edge comprising at least one fastener (118/118A) reversibly attachable to the at least one sleeve guide, wherein, while remaining attached to the support structure via the at least one fastener and the at least one sleeve guide, at least one of the plurality of sleeves is transferable from being disposed adjacent to the first support section of the articulated spine to being disposed adjacent to the second support section of the articulated spine.
Regarding claim 2, note there is a plurality of sleeve guides (18/18A) arranged along the length of the articulated spine.
Regarding claim 3, note the each of the plurality of sleeves each has a forward face and
a rearward face, at least one of the forward face or the rearward face including the at least one storage compartment as claimed.
Regarding claim 4, note there are 8 fasteners 118 and 8 sleeve guides in fig. 14. Also noted that the claim is a comprising type and does not exclude other fasteners and/or guide in other embodiments.
Regarding claim 17, note the support sections are rigid as cited above.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodrigues in view of Roegner (5897209).
PNG
media_image8.png
584
545
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Rodrigues meets all claimed limitations except for the flexion region is positioned over a sidewall of the baggage. Roegner teaches that it is known in the art to provide a flexion region 50 positioned over a sidewall of the baggage. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide a flexion region 50 positioned over a sidewall Rodrigues to provide added protection to the wall of the luggage.
Claims 10-13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodrigues in view of Griesinger (911125). Rodrigues meets all claimed limitations except for the claimed tether.
PNG
media_image9.png
856
670
media_image9.png
Greyscale
(13) Leaves may be removed or inserted with great ease by disengaging the ends of the straps from the studs and drawing the straps endwise until the joints 15 therein are brought to that part of the book where the leaves are to be removed or inserted. Then pull the joints above the leaves until a sufficient length of each strap has been drawn up to permit the disconnection of the joints, which being done the changes in leaves may, be made, the strap sections again joined and the straps once more pulled taut and their ends connected to the stud 7.
Griesinger teaches that it is known in the art to provide at least one tether (fig. 3) attached at a first end of the tether to the first support section (1) of the articulated spine and at a second end of the tether to the second support section (1) of the articulated spine such that the at least one tether extends over at least a portion of the first support section, across the flexion region (2 at 15), and over at least a portion of the second support section, and the at least one of the plurality of sleeves is transferable from the first support section of the articulated spine to the second support section of the articulated spine by sliding (attachment holes 22) along the at least one tether. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide at least one tether attached at a first end of the tether to the first support section of the articulated spine and at a second end of the tether to the second support section of the articulated spine such that the at least one tether extends over at least a portion of the first support section, across the flexion region, and over at least a portion of the second support section, and the at least one of the plurality of sleeves is transferable from the first support section of the articulated spine to the second support section of the articulated spine by sliding (attachment holes 18 of the sleeves) along the at least one tether to provide an alternative attachment construction.
Regarding claim 11, the first end of the tether in Griesinger is reversibly attached to the first support section of the articulated spine and the second end of the tether is reversibly attached to the second support section via the snap at 7/14 (spring socket 14/ stud 7).
Regarding claim 12, note the device in Griesinger comprises at least a strap.
Regarding claim 13, note Griesinger teaches a plurality of tethers spaced out from one another along the length of the articulated spine.
Regarding claim 19, Rodrigues teaches a baggage sleeve packing system, comprising: a support structure, including: an articulated spine (the hinged portion at 15B ) including a first support section attached adjacent to a second support section via a flexion region along a length of the articulated spine; and a plurality of sleeve guides (316) disposed on or in the articulated spine and spaced out from one another along the length of the articulated spine; and a plurality of sleeves, each of the plurality of sleeves including: at least one storage compartment; and a binding edge along a length of the sleeve, the binding edge comprising a plurality of fasteners (118) reversibly attachable to the plurality of sleeve guides, wherein while remaining attached to the support structure via the plurality of fasteners and the plurality of sleeve guides, at least one of the plurality of sleeves is transferable from being disposed adjacent to the first support section of the articulated spine to being disposed adjacent to the second support section of the articulated spine; the baggage sleeve packing system is configured for being disposed in a piece of baggage such that the flexion region is positioned over a sidewall of the baggage; the plurality of sleeve guides (316). Rodrigues meets all claimed limitations except for the sleeve guides includes a plurality of tethers. As set forth above, Griesinger teaches that it is known in the art to provide at least one tether (fig. 3) attached at a first end of the tether to the first support section (1) of the articulated spine and at a second end of the tether to the second support section (1) of the articulated spine such that the at least one tether extends over at least a portion of the first support section, across the flexion region (2 at 15), and over at least a portion of the second support section, and the at least one of the plurality of sleeves is transferable from the first support section of the articulated spine to the second support section of the articulated spine by sliding (attachment holes 22) along the at least one tether. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide at least one tether attached at a first end of the tether to the first support section of the articulated spine and at a second end of the tether to the second support section of the articulated spine such that the at least one tether extends over at least a portion of the first support section, across the flexion region, and over at least a portion of the second support section, and the at least one of the plurality of sleeves is transferable from the first support section of the articulated spine to the second support section of the articulated spine by sliding (attachment holes 18 of the sleeves) along the at least one tether to provide an alternative attachment construction.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodrigues in view of Griesinger, and further in view of Chan (12029297). Rodrigues teaches a plurality of loop fasteners. Rodrigues meets all claimed limitations except for the each of the plurality of loop fasteners permanently attached to the sleeve at a first end of the loop fastener and reversibly attached to the sleeve at a second end of the loop fastener (claim 14), and at least one fastener reversibly attachable to the at least one sleeve guide is selected from the group consisting of at least one snap fastener, at least one clip fastener, at least one zipper fastener, at least one hook and loop fastener, at least one magnetic fastener, and combinations thereof.
.
PNG
media_image10.png
858
686
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
850
666
media_image11.png
Greyscale
In the embodiment shown in FIG. 3C, an end of the strip portion 24 is fixed to the ridge portion 23, and the other end is detachably connected to the ridge portion 23 by buttons, magnets, Velcro, or other similar attachment means.
Chan teaches that it is known in the art to provide a fastener for a sleeve with a loop fastener permanently attached to the sleeve at a first end of the loop fastener and reversibly attached to the sleeve at a second end of the loop fastener.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide a each of the loop in Rodrigues permanently attached to the sleeve at a first end of the loop fastener and reversibly attached to the sleeve at a second end as taught by Chan of the loop fastener to enable one to take out the sleeve easily.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodrigues in view in view of Chan (12029297). Rodrigues teaches a plurality of loop fasteners. Rodrigues meets all claimed limitations except for the least one fastener reversibly attachable to the at least one sleeve guide is selected from the group consisting of at least one snap fastener, at least one clip fastener, at least one zipper fastener, at least one hook and loop fastener, at least one magnetic fastener, and combinations thereof. As set forth above, Chan teaches that it is known in the art to provide a fastener for a sleeve with a loop fastener permanently attached to the sleeve at a first end of the loop fastener and reversibly attached to the sleeve at a second end of the loop fastener.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide each of the loop in Rodrigues permanently attached to the sleeve at a first end of the loop fastener and reversibly attached to the sleeve at a second end as taught by Chan of the loop fastener to enable one to take out the sleeve easily.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI M MAI whose telephone number is (571)272-4541. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm (Mon-Friday).
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.
TRI M. MAI
Examiner
Art Unit 3733
/TRI M MAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights