DETAILED ACTION
Examiner Remarks
The Examiner has reviewed the amendment filed May 28, 2026.
The Applicant has overcome item “A” of the original non-final rejection because the amended specification has clarified the broken lines shown in the drawings.
Applicant’s amendments to the drawings have not overcome the previously issued item “B” of the non-final rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a)&(b), and necessitate a final rejection because the amended reproductions continue to show inconsistencies where the top handle connects to the bag.
The arguments presented have been carefully considered, but are not persuasive that the rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a)&(b) should be withdrawn.
The amendment has not overcome the rejection of record and is hereby repeated and made final.
Applicant’s amendment to the drawings has necessitated a rejection of the claim under 35 USC §112(a) because it fails to meet the written description requirement. There were areas in the amended drawings where lines were inconsistent compared to the original drawings.
A final rejection of the claim is set forth below.
FINAL Claim Rejection - 35 USC §112(a)&(b)
The claim is FINALLY rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a)&(b), as the claimed invention is not described in such a full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the same, and fails to point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
1024
1162
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The claim is indefinite and non-enabling because there is an inconsistency where the top handle connects on the right side of the Bag in amended Rep. 1.1 compared to Rep. 1.5 and original Rep. 1.1. A line for thickness is shown on the right side where the handle connects to the bag in Rep. 1.5 and in original Rep. 1.1, but amended Rep. 1.1 does not show a line for thickness in this same area. See the following illustration that points to this inconsistency.
To overcome this rejection, the Examiner suggests for the Applicant to amend the inconsistent area shown on the right side of the top handle in Rep. 1.1 for consistency throughout the reproductions.
Final Rejection - 35 USC §112(a)
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the description requirement thereof since the amended drawings are not supported by the original disclosure. The original disclosure does not reasonably convey to a designer of ordinary skill in the art that applicant was in possession of the design now claimed at the time the application was filed. See In re Daniels, 144 F.3d 1452, 46 USPQ2d 1788 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981). Specifically, there is no support in the original disclosure for the following:
PNG
media_image2.png
1311
1551
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A.) There is no support for converting the larger dashed broken lined claimed stitching shown in original Rep. 1.1 to very small dashed broken lines in amended Rep. 1.1 because the number of claimed stitches are inconsistent with the other drawings in the amended Rep. 1.1
To overcome this rejection and to avoid introducing new matter, the Examiner suggests for the Applicant to amend the stitching in Rep. 1.1 so that it is consistent with what was previously shown, and consistent with the other reproductions.
B.) There is no support for converting the lines shown adjacent to the bottom of the bag in amended Reps. 1.2 and 1.3 from solid line to broken lines. The Examiner had understood the solid lines in the original reproductions to be showing the overlapping material on the bottom of the bag, which is shown in solid lines in Reps. 1.4, 1.5 and 1.7. See the following illustration that points to this inconsistency.
PNG
media_image3.png
1739
1092
media_image3.png
Greyscale
To overcome this rejection and to avoid introducing new matter, the Examiner suggests for the Applicant to amend the lines shown adjacent to the bottom of the bag in amended Reps. 1.2 and 1.3 so that they are consistent with what was previously shown, and consistent with the other reproductions.
PNG
media_image4.png
602
1527
media_image4.png
Greyscale
C.) There is no support for converting the broken lines shown adjacent to the front left side of the bag in amended Rep. 1.6 from broken lines to solid line. This area of the bag in Rep. 1.6 is now inconsistent with Reps. 1.1, 1.2 and 1.7. See the following illustration that points to this inconsistency.
To overcome this rejection and to avoid introducing new matter, the Examiner suggests for the Applicant to amend the solid line shown adjacent to the front left side of the bag in amended Rep. 1.6 so it is consistent with the broken lines that were previously shown, and consistent with the other reproductions.
When preparing new or replacement reproductions, be careful to avoid introducing new matter. New matter is prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f).
Any amended replacement reproduction sheet should include all of the reproductions appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one reproduction is being amended. The reproduction or reproduction number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing reproduction is to be canceled, the appropriate reproduction must be removed from the replacement reproduction sheet, and where necessary, the remaining reproductions must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement reproduction sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining reproductions. If all the reproductions on a sheet are canceled, a replacement reproduction sheet is not required. A marked-up copy of the reproduction sheet (labeled as “Annotated Sheet”) including an annotation showing that all the reproductions on that sheet have been canceled must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change to the reproductions. Each reproduction 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.
Conclusion
The claim stands finally rejected under 35 USC 112 (a) & 35 U.S.C. 112 (a)&(b). 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 extension fee 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.
The references cited but not applied are considered cumulative art related to the claimed design.
Hague – Reply Reminder for all Refusals
Applicants reminded that any reply to this Refusal must be signed either by a patent practitioner (i.e., a patent attorney or agent registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office) or by the Applicant. If the Applicant is a juristic entity, the reply must be signed by a patent practitioner. See 37 CFR 1.33(b).
When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence
When responding to an official correspondence issued by the USPTO, including refusals, Notice of Allowances, or Notice of Abandonments, please note the following:
The USPTO transacts business in writing. Applicants may submit replies to Office actions only by:
Online via the USPTO's Patent Center (Registered eFilers only):
https://patentcenter.uspto.gov
Mail: Commissioner For Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA, 22313-1450
Mailing should be done sufficiently in advance to ensure the USPTO receipt prior to reply period expiration.
Facsimile to the USPTO's Official Fax Number (571-273-8300) Do Not Fax Formal Drawings.
Hand-carry to USPTO's Alexandria, Virginia Customer Service Window.
For additional information regarding responding to office actions see: https://www.uspto.gov/patents-maintaining-patent/responding-office-actions
Note that correspondence received will appear in Patent Center, which may be viewed by the applicant at:
https://patentcenter.uspto.gov
Contact and Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA M GEBHART whose telephone number is (571)272-9690. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 7:30 am to 6 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ian Simmons, can be reached at telephone number 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 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.
/J.M.G./Examiner, Art Unit 2913 /IAN SIMMONS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2913
Prosecution Insights