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 .
Applicant’s Response
The response on 07/19/2026 has been received and entered into the electronic case file. Counsel for the applicant’s comments and remarks have been carefully considered.
Election
Applicant has elected Group II, embodiments (designs) 2, 3, and 4 for prosecution in the instant application. Group I (embodiments 1 and 5) have been withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being for the nonelected design. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/19/2026.
Objection to the Drawing
The reproductions are objected to for failing to fully disclose the industrial design because the side view and rear view of the embodiment 2 and embodiment 3 appear to be mislabelled. See 37 CFR 1.1026 and Rule 9 of the Common Regulations Under the 1999 Act and the 1960 Act of the Hague Agreement.
Below, the examiner has annotated drawing figures 2.3 and 2.4, and 3.3 and 3.4 to illustrate how it appears there has been a switch of either the side or rear view with the other embodiment:
PNG
media_image1.png
666
1793
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
874
2010
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A new, formal, and mutually consistent drawing with sharp and well defined lines, wherein the noted objections have been corrected, is now required.
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).
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.
Objection to the Specification
The specification is objected to because there are no figure descriptions (Description of the Reproductions) provided as required (37 CFR 1.1021(b)(1)(ii)). Though there is no required format prescribed for the description of the figures, the descriptions typically include the figure (reproduction) number and an orientation. The figure descriptions of a Hague Agreement specification can be written in either short statements or single words. Since the Camera Case of the application is shown in different positions of use (an open versus closed positioning), the examiner suggests short statements for clarity, for example of embodiment (design) 2:
--2.1 is a top view in a closed position of use;
2.2 is a top view in an open position of use;
2.3 is a rear view in a closed position of use;
2.4 is a side view thereof;
2.5 is a bottom view thereof;
2.6 is a front view thereof; --
All drawing reproduction figures must be described.
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.
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “ReLon Bag L with enough space for several cameras and much more!” video on facebook.com (Facebook) as cited on line U of the enclosed PTO-892 because 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.
The appearance of Facebook is substantially the same as that of the claimed design. The ordinary observer test is the sole test for anticipation. Int’l Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp., 589 F.3d 1233, 1237-38, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
PNG
media_image3.png
523
1224
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Facebook 3.6
“Two designs are substantially the same if their resemblance is deceptive to the extent that it would induce an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, to purchase an article having one design supposing it to be the other.” Door-Master Corp. v. Yorktowne Inc., 256 F.3d 1308, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Gorham Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511, 528 (1871)).
“The mandated overall comparison is a comparison taking into account significant differences between the two designs, not minor or trivial differences that necessarily exist between any two designs that are not exact copies of one another. Just as ‘minor differences between a patented design and an accused article's design cannot, and shall not, prevent a finding of infringement,’ so too minor differences cannot prevent a finding of anticipation.” Int'l Seaway, 589 F.3d at 1243 (citing Litton Sys., Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp., 728 F.2d 1423, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
In any attempt to overcome the rejection with the filing of an affidavit under 37 CFR 1.130(a), the affidavit should include an unequivocal statement that the inventor herein is the inventor of the design shown in the reference, and provide an explanation of how the design was obtained from the inventor by the publisher of the reference.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the claim stands rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1), as set forth above.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN A LAVERTY whose telephone number is (571)272-9387. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7 a.m. - 3:30 p.m.
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, Michelle Wilson can be reached at (571) 272-7639. 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.
/CAITLIN A LAVERTY/Examiner, Art Unit 2912
Prosecution Insights