NON-FINAL REJECTION
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
In the paper received 08/27/2025, applicant elects without traverse the design shown in Group I (Figs. 1-8). Accordingly, the design shown in Group II stands withdrawn from further prosecution. 37 CFR 1.142(b).
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the election is acknowledged. The election has been treated as an election without traverse because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement (MPEP § 818.03(a)).
Accordingly, the restriction requirement is made FINAL.
Specification
The specification is objected to for the following reasons:
In accordance with the election, the figure descriptions for the non-elected design must be removed, and the description for figure 1 must be amended to read:
--FIG. 1 is a perspective view of a Bag;--
The statements “The surface shading lines show contour and/or distinguish between open and solid areas. The surface shading lines are not surface ornamentation.” should be cancelled because it is not needed in order to understand the design and could lead to confusion. Per MPEP 1503.01, no description of the design in the specification beyond a brief description of the drawing is generally necessary, since as a rule the illustration in the drawing views is its own best description. In re Freeman, 23 App. D.C. 226 (App. D.C. 1904).
The broken line statement provided does not accurately describe the broken lines’ association to the claimed matter. (MPEP 1503.01(II)). For clarity and accuracy, the broken line statement found in the specification should be removed and the following broken line statement must be inserted immediately preceding the claim:
--The broken lines depict portions of the article that form no part of the claimed design.--
Drawing Objection
The drawings are objected to for the following reasons:
The drawings are objected to because surface shading is used on unclaimed subject matter in figure 7 (indicated below). While surface shading is not required under 37 CFR 1.152, surface shading should not be used on unclaimed subject matter or shown in broken lines, to avoid confusion as to the scope of the claim.
PNG
media_image1.png
423
550
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In accordance with the election, the drawings of the non-elected design (figures 9-16) must be removed from the disclosure.
Corrected Drawings Required
Corrected drawing sheets 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. If all the figures on a drawing sheet are canceled, a replacement sheet is not required. A marked-up copy of the drawing sheet (labeled as “Annotated Sheet”) including an annotation showing that all the figures on that drawing sheet have been canceled must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change to the drawings. 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.
35 USC 112 (a) and (b)
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b), as the claimed invention is not described in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the same, and fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
The claimed invention is indefinite and nonenabling because the overall shape/configuration and scope of the design cannot be understood without resorting to conjecture. Since the drawing disclosure constitutes the entire visual disclosure of the claim, it is imperative that the drawing or photograph be clear and complete. Nothing regarding the design sought to be patented must be left to conjecture. See MPEP 1503.02.
The claim is indefinite and nonenabling for the following reasons:
The scope of the claim is unclear. Specifically, figure 2 contains stippling on the article (indicated below) that is not described in the specification. The stippling could depict something like a sticky surface or a contrast in material. As currently disclosed it would be impossible for one skilled in the art to make and use the design without resort to conjecture.
PNG
media_image2.png
782
1105
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant may overcome this rejection by amending the specification by adding a statement clarifying what the stippling represents in the drawings.
The exact shape and configuration of the bag is inconsistent between figures 1, 2, 5, and 6. Figures 5 and 6 show the bag with a rectangular shape with more defined corners (indicated below) than what is seen in figures 1 and 2. Consistency is required.
PNG
media_image3.png
688
1336
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
854
1214
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figures 5 and 6 are inconsistent with figure 1. According to figures 5 and 6, the height of the shoulder strap is about equal to the top of the bag (indicated below). Therefore, figure 1 should show some of the shoulder strap on the rear of the bag. Consistency is required.
PNG
media_image5.png
453
1452
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 7 is inconsistent with figures 3 and 4. Figures 3 and 4 show the indicated portion of the bag past the zipper track to angle inward (indicated below) which does not match shape seen in figure 7. Consistency is required.
PNG
media_image6.png
822
821
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Figures 4 and 7 are inconsistent with figures 3, 5, 6, and 8. Figures 4 and 7 show the shoulder strap to connect to the bag on the top left (indicated below) but figures 3, 5, 6, and 8 show that the shoulder strap connects to the bag on the top right. Consistency is required.
PNG
media_image7.png
1582
1531
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Figure 8 shows a different shape to the bottom of the bag and is missing the indicated elements (indicated below) that are seen in figures 3 and 4. Figures 3 and 4 show the bag to taper inward toward the bottom of the bag, which shows elements on the sides of the article that should be seen in figure 8. Consistency is required.
PNG
media_image8.png
816
1674
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The exact configuration of the indicated strap on the rear of the bag (indicated below in red color) is not clearly disclosed. None of the views show where and how the strap connects to the shoulder strap on the article. As currently disclosed it would be impossible for one skilled in the art to make and use the design without resort to conjecture.
PNG
media_image9.png
798
1601
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Figures 5 and 6 are inconsistent with figures 1 and 2. Figures 1 and 2 show the removable panel on the front of the bag placed completely flush with the front of the bag (indicated below) but figures 5 and 6 show the removable panel extending off the bag on the top and bottom. Consistency is required.
PNG
media_image10.png
854
1214
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Figures 5 and 6 are inconsistent with figures 1 and 2. Figures 1 and 2 show the indicated surface above the removable panel on the front of the bag with a different size and shape (indicated below) than what is seen in figures 5 and 6. Consistency is required.
PNG
media_image11.png
846
924
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Because of the inconsistencies, and insufficient information in the drawings provided, the claimed design is in fact subject to multiple interpretations, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reproduce the design without the use of conjecture. This renders the claim indefinite and non-enabled. In order to overcome this rejection, it is suggested that the design be shown clearly and consistently among the views. However, care must be taken to not introduce new matter. It must be apparent that applicant was in possession of the amended design at the time of original filing. When preparing new or replacement drawings, be careful to avoid introducing new matter. New matter is prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f).
Conclusion
The claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b).
The references are cited as pertinent prior art. Applicant may view and obtain copies of the cited references by visiting http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html and pressing the “Patent Number Search” button.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN CZYZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0204. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Garth Rademaker can be reached on 571-272-8705. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVEN J CZYZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2922