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 .
Examiners CommentWhile the “Homest XL Nylon Laundry Bag” hereinafter “Homest” reference has some similarities to the claimed design, the examiner was unable to teach the differences between this prior art and the claimed design. Homest has more of a round appearance with a static width throughout, whereas, the claimed design has a more narrow appearance at the bottom of the bag, becoming fatter as it nears the top drawstring section of the bag. Furthermore, the claimed design as a different style shoulder strap and it has a handle not shown in the Homest reference.
PNG
media_image1.png
840
1517
media_image1.png
Greyscale
SpecificationThe specification provided on 4/26/2023 is objectionable. The following language from below the broken line statement should be removed. This statement expands the scope of the claim.
This language should be removed from the specification
PNG
media_image2.png
341
809
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
73
765
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, the following language should be removed from the specification because it is redundant and something already allowed without such a statement.
PNG
media_image4.png
250
786
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim rejections
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first and second paragraphs, 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 the inventor or a joint inventor (or, for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant) regards as the invention.
The claim is indefinite and non-enabling because there are inconsistencies between the views of the drawings that are so great that the overall appearance of the design is unclear (MPEP § 1504.04), specifically:
No part of the left, right, front, and rear views align. See the annotations below.
The shoulder strap is confusing and open to conjecture. Where does it begin and end? Why are the buckles in a different location and at a different scale in each view? Would part of the shoulder strap be visible in the corner of Fig. 2?
PNG
media_image5.png
1019
2162
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The drawstring and the tab-like shape at the bottom doesn’t align between views. Additionally, the side handle also doesn’t align between views.
PNG
media_image6.png
1043
2148
media_image6.png
Greyscale
No part of the left and right side views align to the top and bottom views. See the annotations below.
The width of the bag in the top view is much wider than anything shown on the left and right sides of the bag. Additionally, the bottom view is much more narrow than anything shown on the left and right side views. As such, no part or portion or connected element of the design aligns in these views. See the projection lines below.
PNG
media_image7.png
1543
925
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The Fig. 7 bottom view shows none of the additional portions of the bag. IE: the shoulder strap, draw string, side pocket, and buckles.
PNG
media_image8.png
1547
811
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The top and bottom views are confusing and open to conjecture. The bottom view shows an oval shape lacking any sort of detail, whereas, the top view shows a number of bulgy areas with crevasses.
PNG
media_image9.png
767
999
media_image9.png
Greyscale
No part of the front and rear views align to what is shown in the top and bottom views. See the annotations below.
No portion of the bottom view aligns to the front or rear views because no portion of the bottom view is actually shown. The bottom view does not show the shoulder strap, buckles, drawstring, and other portions of the design. Additionally, the scale of the bottom view does not align to the front and rear views.
PNG
media_image10.png
1160
851
media_image10.png
Greyscale
No portion of the Fig. 6 top view aligns to the front and rear views.
PNG
media_image11.png
1445
1859
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
1470
1087
media_image12.png
Greyscale
The Fig. 1 perspective view is confusing and open to conjecture. The bottom of Fig. 1 shows the bag appearing to be folded at the bottom, this is not shown at any other view. Additionally, Fig. 1 has more of a bulky appearance than what is shown in any other view. See the annotation of Figs. 1 and 3 as an example below.
PNG
media_image13.png
1090
1144
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Because of the inconsistencies, the claimed design is in fact subject to multiple interpretations, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to make and use the design without the use of conjecture. This renders the claim indefinite and non-enabled.
To overcome this rejection, it is suggested that applicant submit new drawings of the claimed design that show the design clearly and consistently. If certain non-enabled portions of the design cannot be fully enabled without the introduction of new matter, applicant may remove from the claim the areas or portions of the design that are considered indefinite and nonenabling by converting them to broken line and amending the specification to indicate those portions form no part of the claimed design.
Correction for inconsistency requires special caution with respect to the possible introduction of new matter prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121. Please cite the antecedent basis for each correction and modification of the drawing disclosure when attempting to overcome inconsistency.
Corrections for inconsistency must be applied uniformly throughout the entire disclosure; that is, consistency must be achieved. Examiner has attempted to identify all the inconsistent detail in this design in the annotated examples above; however, the onus is on the applicant to show every aspect of the claimed design accurately and consistently throughout views. It may not be possible for examiner to identify all inconsistent detail in the disclosure. Nevertheless, all inconsistencies should be remedied or otherwise satisfactorily explained, removed from the claim, or figures cancelled [if such does not negatively impact understanding of the remaining disclosure].
As well, elements which are claimed / or not claimed should be consistently drawn with full or broken line in all the drawings. A given element may not be claimed in one view and disclaimed in another.
Replacement drawings
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.
Avoidance of new matter
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).
References cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) and the specification is objected to.
Contact information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUSTIN GRIFFITH whose telephone number is (571)272-1797. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 10:00am – 7:00pm & Friday 1:00PM – 6:00PM EST.
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, Ian Simmons can be reached on (571)-272-2658. 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.
/D.A.G./Examiner, Art Unit 2913
/IAN SIMMONS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2913