DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/15/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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, how the folds of the expandable member resist contraction along the transverse axis, lower a Poisson’s ratio and generate a negative Poisson’s ratio (claims 6-8, 16-18) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. See the Section 112(a) rejection below for more discussion.
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(a)
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.
Claims 6-8 and 16-18 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.
Regarding claims 6-8 and 16-18, the disclosure fails to describe how the expandable member resists contraction along the transverse axis via the folds of the expandable member. The specification notes that reentrant features are used and the valleys 135 and troughs 140 provide this feature (see applicant’s para. 0070). However, the valleys and troughs are along a length of the strap and would appear to only extend in a length direction of the strap when flattened. It is unclear how the valleys and troughs would resist contraction in a width direction, would lower a Poisson’s ratio, and would generate a negative Poisson’s ratio.
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(s) 1, 3-4, 9-11, 13-14 and 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 6,375,053 to Cecchinel in view of US Published Application 2008/0138565 to Yang and US Patent 11,358,367 to Toronjo.
Regarding claim 1, Cecchinel discloses a backpack comprising: an enclosure (1) for storing items; and a shoulder strap system coupled to the enclosure, the shoulder strap system comprising: an expandable member (6 – Fig. 4) defining a longitudinal axis and a transverse axis, the expandable member comprising a resilient material (Col. 2, lines 36-40); and a restriction member (8) configured to limit expansion of the expandable member, the restriction member comprising a material element secured to the expandable member by a first anchor (one stitch in Fig. 4) and a second anchor (second stitch in Fig. 4) such that the restriction member forms a loop segment that is unsecured in an area between the first anchor and the second anchor (Fig. 4), wherein each of the first anchor and the second anchor extends in a direction transverse the longitudinal axis of the expandable member (Fig. 4) and the area of the loop segment between the first anchor and the second anchor provides an opening between lengthwise edges of the loop segment (Fig. 4). Cecchinel fails to disclose the expandable member including an S-shaped section. However, Yang discloses a stretchable strap that includes S-shaped sections formed by a plurality of folds generally aligned on the transverse axis (Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included S-shaped sections in the expandable member because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent stretchable element for another to obtain predictable results. The combination fails to disclose the expandable member being a resilient textile or the restriction member being a textile. However, Toronjo discloses that it is known to use textiles and resilient textiles for stretchable articles (Col. 1, lines 58-62). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used a textile for the restriction member and a resilient textile for the expandable member in the combination because the modification only involves choosing from a finite number of predictable materials to use in a backpack.
Regarding claim 3, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein the plurality of folds includes a repeating array of folds including alternating ridges and troughs that, under longitudinal tension, separate and flatten (Yang Fig. 4).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein: the expandable member expands when a tensile force is applied in a longitudinal direction; and the textile element of the restriction member is capable of transitioning from an arcuate configuration to a planar configuration during expansion of the expandable member (resilient textile changes from arcuate configuration in Cecchinel Fig. 4 to planar configuration in Cecchinel Fig. 3; see also Yang Fig. 4).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein: the resilient textile of the expandable member comprises a woven textile including more than 5% elastic strands based on total number of strands that form the resilient textile (Toronjo Col. 14, lines 46-48); and the textile element of the restriction member comprises a woven textile including less than 5% elastic strands based on a total number of strands that form the textile element (Toronjo Col. 14, lines 20-21; Col. 4, lines 47-49). The combination fails to disclose the resilient textile comprising a woven textile. However, Toronjo discloses that woven textiles are known in wearable articles (Toronjo Col. 14, lines 20-21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have formed the resilient textile by weaving because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent textile element for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein: the expandable member is biased toward a normal, contracted position by elastic strands within the resilient textile of the expandable member (Cecchinel Fig. 4; Yang Fig. 4; Toronjo); the expandable member is capable of expanding from the normal, contracted position to a fully expanded position by increasing a distance between adjacent folds (Cecchinel Fig. 3; Yang Fig. 4 (tension would increase the distance as claimed)); the restriction member extends longitudinally along the expandable member such that the restriction member spans the plurality of folds (the restriction member (Cecchinel Fig. 4) would span multiple folds (Yang Fig. 4)); and the restriction member prevents expansion of the expandable member to the fully expanded position (Cecchinel Col. 2, lines 45-47).
Regarding claim 11, the combination from claim 1 discloses a shoulder strap system comprising: an expandable member (6 – Cecchinel Fig. 4) defining a longitudinal axis and a transverse axis, the expandable member comprising a resilient textile (Toronjo) including a plurality of folds oriented on the transverse axis (Yang Fig. 4), wherein the plurality of folds comprises a repeating array of folds including alternating ridges and troughs that, under longitudinal tension, separate and flatten (Yang Fig. 4/Cecchinel Fig. 3); and a restriction member (8 – Cecchinel Fig. 4) comprising a textile element (Toronjo) secured to the expandable member by a first anchor (first stitching in Cecchinel Fig. 4) and a second anchor (second stitching in Cecchinel Fig. 4) such that the textile element forms a loop segment that is unsecured in an area between the first anchor and the second anchor (Cecchinel Fig. 4), wherein each of the first anchor and the second anchor extends in a direction transverse the longitudinal axis of the expandable member (Cecchinel Fig. 4) and the area of the loop segment between the first anchor and the second anchor provides an opening between lengthwise edges of the loop segment (Cecchinel Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 13, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein: the expandable member comprises a first, concave fold and a second, convex fold (Yang Fig. 4); and the loop segment is an arcuate loop segment that flattens to a generally planar configuration under tension to limit elongation of the expandable member (Cecchinel Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 21, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein: the loop segment spans the plurality of folds of the expandable member (Cecchinel/Yang); the loop segment defines an anchor distance (Cecchinel Fig. 4), the anchor distance being a distance between the first anchor and the second anchor; and the loop segment has an arc length that is greater than the anchor distance between the first anchor and the second anchor of the loop segment (Cecchinel Fig. 4 – when relaxed, the arc length is greater than the anchor distance).
Regarding claim 22, the combination from claim 1 fails to disclose a plurality of loop segments. However, Toronjo discloses that it is known to use several loop segments in series along an elastic member (Figs. 4B, 4C). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included several loop segments along the shoulder strap in the combination because it would allow for greater total stretch while controlling the specific stretch of each segment of the elastic member. Further, the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent controlled stretchable strap element for another to obtain predictable results. In the combination, the expandable member includes a plurality of loop segments, each loop segment defined by a corresponding first anchor and second anchor (two consecutive stitches (Cecchinel Fig. 4/Toronjo Fig. 4C); each loop segment of the plurality of loop segments spans a plurality of folds of the expandable member (Toronjo Fig. 4, Yang Fig. 4); an anchor distance is defined as a distance between the first anchor and the second anchor for each corresponding loop segment; and each loop segment has an arc length that is greater than the anchor distance between the corresponding first anchor and the corresponding second anchor of the loop segment such that the loop segment flattens to a generally planar configuration under tension to limit elongation of the expandable member (Cecchinel Figs. 3-4; Toronjo Figs. 4B-4C).
Claim(s) 6-8 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cehhinel, Yang and Toronjo, further in view of CN 10389898 to Wang and US Patent 11,123,628 to Frappier.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, the combination from claim 1 fails to disclose wherein the expandable member resists contraction along the transverse axis as tension is applied along the longitudinal axis. However, Wang discloses that it is known to use auxetic material in the shoulder strap of a backpack (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used auxetic material in the expandable member because it would avoid stress concentration, as taught by Wang (abstract). To the extent the design of the auxetic material is not clear, Frappier discloses an expandable member that resists contraction along the transverse axis as tension is applied along the longitudinal axis (Figs. 10a-b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used Frappier’s expandable member shape in the combination because it would provide for stretch in both directions of the strap. Further, the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent auxetic strap material element for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, the combination from claim 6 discloses wherein the folds of the expandable member are organized in a repeating pattern effective to lower a Poisson’s ratio of the expandable member (Frappier Figs. 10a-b).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, the combination from claim 6 discloses wherein the folds of the expandable member are organized in a repeating pattern effective to generate a negative Poisson's ratio for the expandable member (Frappier Figs. 10a-b).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to applicant’s argument that the specification and drawings support the expandable member resisting contraction, lowering a Poisson’s ratio and generating a negative Poisson’s ratio (page 9), it is still not clear from the disclosure how this is accomplished. The valleys and troughs only appear to expand in the longitudinal direction of the strap when a tensile force is applied (see Applicant’s Fig. 2A, for example). In this configuration, it is unclear how the valleys and troughs would have an effect on the width of the strap.
As to applicant’s argument that the art fails to disclose loop segments (pages 10-11), see the new rejection above based on Cecchinel.
As to applicant’s argument that the combination involving Yang would not result in the S-shaped strands (page 12), both Cecchinel and Yang teach elastic segments and using Yang’s elastic shape in Cecchinel only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent stretchable element for another to obtain predictable results. The elastic nature of Yang would result in the claimed stretching and flattening. It is also noted that Frappier teaches S-shaped strands that stretch and flatten.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT T MCNURLEN whose telephone number is (313)446-4898. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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.
/SCOTT T MCNURLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights