DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/17/2026 has been entered.
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 6/17/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 10-18, and 20-25 remain pending in the application. New claims 25 has been added to the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7, 10-18, and 20-25, have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the references being used in the current rejection. Note discussion of US Publication 2017/0245608 by King, below.
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 USC 103 rejections of claims 1-3, 5-7, 10-18, and 20-25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for these reasons:
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that Bhatnagar does not teach “retract to a second position within the main body of the suitcase” (Page 9), the examiner disagrees, pointing out that battery containment mechanism 122 does retract to second position within the main body as the mechanism 122 is already located within a recess of the main body of the suitcase. When in the second position the mechanism retracts away from the opposite side surface of the suitcase.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that Voight does not teach limitations regarding the upper surface (Page 9-11), the examiner disagrees, pointing out the upper surface can be considered the surface of the upper half of the case. Therefore, the opening of the receptacle would be at an upper surface and opposite the wheels, and a portion of the receptacle will be above the upper surface of the suitcase when the spring is extended.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion regarding claim 3 (Page 11-13), the examiner has taught reference US Publication 2017/0245608 by King (See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 3 below).
Regarding Applicant’s assertion regarding the tray protrusion and slot (Page 12-13), the examiner points out that the protrusion and tray slot is referenced by Baldwin not Bhatnagar and the correction has been made.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion regarding the height adjustment component (Page 13), the examiner points out that Bhatnagar teaches the heigh adjustment component (See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 23 and the 112b rejection below).
Regarding Applicant’s assertion regarding the moving piece engaging with the locking mechanism to move to a lowered position within the receptacle and receptacle being positioned on an upper surface (Page 13-14), the examiner points out that the moving piece is described as one of the springs and the retraction and extension of the moving piece is affected by the position of the locking mechanism and the spring is indirectly engaged with the locking mechanism (See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 23).
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, height adjustment component in claim 23 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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
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.
Claim 17 is 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 claim 17, the specification does not describe the locking mechanism to be “configured to slide from the interior of the suitcase”. Para 59-60 of the instant application calls out locking mechanism as element 106.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing 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.
Regarding claim 23, it is unclear what “a height adjusting component” for purposes of examination the examiner is interpreting the height adjusting component to be the spring component mentioned in claim 18 that adjusts the height of the removable container.
Claim 25 is rejected due to its dependency.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-8, 12, 14-15, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 11140958 issued to Baldwin (Here forth “Baldwin”) in view of US Patent 5159999 issued to Voigt (Here forth “Voigt”) and US Publication 2019/0045897 by Bhatnagar (Here forth “Bhatnagar”).
Regarding claim 1, Baldwin discloses suitcase comprising:
a main body (Fig 1, there is a main body of luggage 10 that has an opening to store items and an opening to store tray 40);
a set of wheels coupled to the main body (Fig 1,back wheels 17);
a retractable tray (Fig 1, tray 40);
a tray opening (Fig 3-5, there is an opening where tray 40 can be seen to come out of cavity 43) in the main body configured to allow the retractable tray to move between a first position interior to the main body to an extended position with a majority of the retractable tray being exterior to the main body (Fig 3-5 the tray 40 can move from first position where tray is within an interior area of the luggage to an extended position with the retractable tray mostly outside the main body);
[Not taught: a receptacle component provided at an exterior of the main body and configured to receive a removable container, wherein an opening of the receptacle component is positioned at an upper surface of the suitcase opposite the set of wheels;
a spring within the receptacle component and configured to raise the removable container within the receptacle component such that a portion of the removable container is above the upper surface of the suitcase when the spring is extended, wherein when the spring is compressed, the receptacle component fully receives the removable container below the upper surface of the suitcase]; and
[Not taught: a locking mechanism having a retractable latch configured to slide across at least a portion of the opening of the receptacle component to a first position that holds the removable container with the receptacle component and to retract to a second position within the main body of the suitcase to release the removable container from the receptacle component].
Baldwin does not expressly disclose a receptacle component that can receive removable container and spring configured to raise the removable container.
Voigt disclose a similar luggage that teaches a receptacle component provided at an exterior of the main body and configured to receive a removable container; and a spring within the receptacle component and configured to raise the removable container within the receptacle component such that a portion of the removable container is above the upper surface of the suitcase when the spring is extended, wherein when the spring is compressed, the receptacle component fully receives the removable container below the upper surface of the suitcase (Fig 1, aperture 28 is a receptacle that can hold a cylindrical removable article 12 which can be a cylindrical container on the main body; the receptacle component 28 includes a circular opening and cylindrical component configured to receive a cylindrical removable container; Fig 3 the receptacle component 28 contains a compressed spring 32 that uncompresses and pushes the container 12 out of the receptacle, raising the container above the surface of the suitcase; Fig 1, the receptacle component includes a cylindrical opening that is shaped to fully receive the removable container 72); wherein an opening of the receptacle component is positioned at an upper surface of the suitcase opposite the set of wheels (The opening of the receptacle 28 when taught to the modified Baldwin is positioned at an upper surface of the suitcase opposite the wheels; the receptacle component extends from a corner of main body along at least a part of a length of the main body of the suitcase).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Baldwin and Voigt before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the luggage of Baldwin to include a receptable component on the main body, as taught by Voigt, to advantageously allow a user to conveniently access and store a cylindrical article such as an umbrella to easily access it when necessary.
Baldwin does not expressly disclose a sliding locking mechanism.
Bhatnagar discloses a similar receptacle component that teaches a locking mechanism having a retractable latch configured to slide across at least a portion of the opening of the receptacle component to a first position that holds the removable container within the receptacle component and to retract to a second position within the main body of the suitcase to release the removable container from the receptacle component (Fig 12 of Bhatnager, the locking mechanism 122 slides across a portion of the opening of the receptacle to a first position which locks the item within and then can be retracted to a second position releasing the lock to remove the item from within the receptacle component; and wherein the locking mechanism 122 is configured to fully extend across the cylindrical at the opening of the modified Baldwin and close over the removable container when the removable container is received in the opening).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the modified Baldwin and Bhatnagar before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the receptacle component of the modified Baldwin to have a sliding locking mechanism, as taught by Bhatnagar, to advantageously prevent the item within from falling out while remaining removable.
Regarding claim 2, Baldwin further discloses wherein the retractable tray is configured to rotate in the extended position so that a surface of the retractable tray when in the extended position is perpendicular to the surface of the retractable tray when in the first position (Fig 2-5 of Baldwin, the tray 40 swivels into the extend position such that the surface of the tray is perpendicular to the surface when it’s in its first position).
Regarding claim 5, Baldwin as modified includes all of the limitations including, wherein the receptacle component includes a circular opening and cylindrical component configured to receive a cylindrical removable container (See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 1; Fig 1 of Voigt).
Regarding claim 6, Baldwin as modified includes all of the limitations including, further comprising the cylindrical removable container (See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 1; Fig 3 of Voigt).
Regarding claim 7, Baldwin further discloses wherein the receptacle component further includes an external piece that extends along the exterior of the main body of the suitcase along at least a portion of a length of the cylindrical component (Fig 3 of Baldwin, the receptacle component includes an l-shaped brace member 42 that, when the retaining apparatus 38 is removed, is an external piece that extends along the exterior of the main body of the suitcase as it is exposed to the external environment like the rest of the external main body).
Regarding claim 12, Baldwin further discloses further comprising: a rechargeable battery source (Fig 5-6 of Baldwin, the battery 33 is rechargeable vie plug 34); and a port to access the rechargeable battery source (Fig 5 of Baldwin, port 35 provides access to rechargeable battery).
Regarding claim 14, Baldwin further discloses further comprising: a set of multiple retractable wheels (Fig 8 of Baldwin, back wheels 17 are retractable).
Regarding claim 15, Baldwin further discloses further comprising: wherein the set of wheels includes a set of multiple retractable wheels (Fig 8 of Baldwin, the wheels can be extended when the handle is extended and is also capable of being retracted with the wheels are retracted), and wherein the suitcase further comprises:
a handle (Fig 8 of Baldwin, retractable handle 11), wherein when the handle extends, each wheel in the set of multiple retractable wheels extend and when the handle retracts, each wheel in the set of multiple retractable wheels retract (Fig 8 of Baldwin, the wheels can be extended when the handle is extended and is also capable of being retracted with the wheels are retracted).
Regarding claim 24, Baldwin as modified includes all of the limitations including disclosing that the receptacle component extends from a corner of main body along at least a part of a length of the main body of the suitcase (See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 1, Fig 1 of Voight).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the application was filed to have the receptacle component extend from the corner of the main body of a suitcase along a length part of body, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldwin, Voight and Bhatnagar in view of US Publication 2017/0245608 by King (Here forth “King”).
Regarding claim 3, Baldwin further comprises
an extendable handle positioned at a first side of an end of the main body, wherein the extendable handle retracts into the main body (Fig 1 of Baldwin, the extendable handle 11 retracts into the main body),
[Not taught: wherein the receptacle component and the tray opening through which the retractable tray extends are positioned at a second side of the end of the main body, wherein the second side is opposite the first side at which the extendable handle is positioned], and
wherein a tray housing includes a slot that forms the tray opening that receives the retractable tray at an interior portion of the suitcase and through which the retractable tray slides and rotates to the extended position (Fig 3-5 of Baldwin, there is an opening slot where tray 40 can be seen to come out of slot and retraction with in by sliding and rotating), wherein the retractable tray includes:
a first portion that is held by the slot when in the extended position (Fig 1 of Baldwin, there is a first portion of the table that is held by the slot when the tray is in the extended position) and having a protrusion that supports the retractable tray in the extended position and stops a portion of the retractable tray from moving through the tray opening (the first portion is a protrusion attached within the slot that supports the second portion of the retractable tray in the extended position and stops a portion of the first portion from moving through the tray opening), and
a second portion opposite the first portion of the retractable tray (Fig 1 of Baldwin, there is a first portion of the tray that remains within the slot when tray is extended and opposite the second part of the tray is the extended portion of the tray) and [Not taught: including a shaped handle formed in a leading edge of the retractable tray].
Baldwin as modified does not expressly location of the receptacle container and tray compared to the handle
King discloses the claimed invention except for the receptacle component and the tray opening through which the retractable tray extends are positioned at a second side of the end of the main body, wherein the second side is opposite the first side at which the extendable handle is positioned (Fig 3 of King, work surface 26 is located at a second side opposite first side with handle).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the application was filed to have the tray and receptacle component positioned on the second side of the end of the main body opposite the first side that has the extendable handle, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Baldwin as modified does not expressly disclose that the tray includes a handle.
Pan discloses a similar suitcase that teaches tray includes a shaped handle formed in a leading edge of the retractable tray (Fig 3 of Pan, handle 201 is formed in a leading edge of the tray).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Baldwin as modified and Pan before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the retractable tray of Baldwin to have a handle attached to the tray, as taught by Pan, to advantageously aid in the extraction of the tray.
Claims 10, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldwin, Voigt, and Bhatnagar in view of US Publication 2021/0056788 by Chen (Here forth “Chen”).
Regarding claim 10, Baldwin as modified does not expressly disclose a location component
Chen discloses a similar luggage that teaches further comprising: a location component configured to transmit a location notification for the suitcase (Para 32 of Chen).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Baldwin as modified and Chen before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the Luggage of Baldwin as modified to a location component to transmit a location notification, as taught by Chen, to advantageously be able to locate lost luggage when it get too far away from user.
Regarding claim 13, Baldwin as modified does not expressly disclose memory or Bluetooth to access memory data
Chen discloses a similar luggage that teaches further comprising: memory; and a short range wireless interface configured to access data in the memory (Para 30-32 and Para 52 of Chen).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Baldwin as modified and Chen before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the Luggage of Baldwin as modified to have memory data that can interface with Bluetooth, as taught by Chen, to advantageously use that information be able to locate lost luggage when it get too far away from user.
Regarding claim 16, Baldwin as modified does not expressly disclose wireless communication component, user display device that communicates with wireless communication component
Chen discloses a similar luggage that teaches further comprising: a wireless communication component that is configured to provide data about the suitcase to an application for display at a user device (Para 30-32 and Para 52 of Chen).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Baldwin as modified and Chen before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the Luggage of Baldwin as modified to include a wireless communication component to provide data about the suitcase to a user’s display device, as taught by Chen, to advantageously use that information be able to locate lost luggage when it get too far away from user.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldwin and Bhatnagar in view of US Publication 2024/0068863 by Katsu (Here forth “Katsu”) .
Regarding claim 11, Baldwin does not expressly disclose a weight sensor and display
Katsu disclose a similar luggage that discloses further comprising: a weight sensor configured to measure a weight of the suitcase and to provide the weight to a display (Abstract of Katsu, Fig 11, there are weight sensors 180 and a display 150).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Baldwin as modified and Katsu before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the Luggage of Baldwin as modified to include weighing sensors and display, as taught by Katsu, to advantageously determine the weight of the luggage and allow the user to know the weight (Abstract).
Claims 18 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 5159999 issued to Voigt (Here forth “Voigt”) in view of US Publication 2019/0045897 by Bhatnagar (Here forth “Bhatnagar”).
Regarding claim 18, Voigt discloses a suitcase comprising:
a main body (Fig 1 of Voigt, container 10 is the main body);
a receptacle component provided at an exterior of the main body of the suitcase and having an opening configured to receive a removable container (Fig 1-3 of Voigt, aperture 28 is the receptacle component provided on the exterior of the main body configured to have an opening to receive a removable container); and
a spring within the receptacle component and configured to raise the removable container above a surface of the suitcase (Fig 1-3 of Voigt, spring 32 helps to eject article 12 which is the removable container); and
a locking mechanism (Fig 1 of Voigt, locking mechanism 18) [Not taught: having a retractable latch configured to slide across at least a portion of the opening of the receptacle component to a first position that holds the removable container within the receptacle component and to retract to a second position within the main body of the suitcase to release the removable container from the receptacle component].
Voigt does not expressly disclose the following locking mechanism has a sliding retractable latch
Bhatnagar discloses a similar receptacle component that teaches a locking mechanism having a retractable latch configured to slide across at least a portion of the opening of the receptacle component to a first position that holds the removable container within the receptacle component and to retract to a second position within the main body of the suitcase to release the removable container from the receptacle component (Fig 12-13 of Bhatnager, the locking mechanism 116 has a sliding latch 122 that slides across a portion of the opening of the receptacle to a first position which locks the item within and then can be retracted to a second position releasing the lock to remove the item from within the receptacle component).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Voigt and Bhatnagar before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the receptacle component of Voight to have the locking mechanism be the sliding locking mechanism, as taught by Bhatnagar, to advantageously prevent the item within from falling out while remaining removable.
Regarding claim 20, Voigt further discloses wherein the receptacle component includes a circular opening and cylindrical component configured to receive a cylindrical removable container (Fig 1, the receptacle 28 has a circular opening and holding structure 16 which is the cylindrical component within the receptacle 28).
Regarding claim 21, Voigt further discloses comprising the cylindrical removable container (Fig 1, article 12 is the cylindrical removable container).
Regarding claim 22, Voigt further discloses wherein the receptacle component further includes an external piece that extends along the exterior of the main body of the suitcase along at least a portion of a length of the cylindrical component (Fig 3 of Voigt, the receptacle component includes an l-shaped brace member 42 that, when the retaining apparatus 38 is removed, is an external piece that extends along the exterior of the main body of the suitcase as it is exposed to the external environment like the rest of the external main body).
Regarding claim 23, Voigt as modified does not expressly disclose a movable piece and height adjusting component.
Bhatnagar further discloses wherein the locking mechanism is further configured to engage a height adjustment component (As stated in 112a above, the height adjustment component is being interpreted to be the spring from claim 18; Fig 10 of Bhatnagar, one of the springs 120 is a height adjusting component as it changes the height of the removable container depending on if it is compressed or not) that includes
a movable piece that engages with the locking mechanism to move to a lowered position within the receptacle component when the retractable latch is at the first position and move to a raised position within the receptable component to position the portion of the removable container is above the upper surface of the suitcase when the retractable latch is retracted to the second position (Para 41 and Fig 10 of Bhatnagar movable piece is the second spring 120 that moves to a lower position within receptacle when latch is in first position and a portion of it is raised when the latch is retracted and locking mechanism is opened the springs 120 engage with the locking mechanism 116 when spring 120 is compressed at a lower position within receptacle component, and is raised when to push removable container above upper surface of the luggage).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Voigt as modified and Bhatnagar before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the receptacle component of the modified Voight to include a movable piece, as taught by Bhatnagar, to advantageously push the container from within out allowing the user to easily pull the object out.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17 and 25 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 17, Baldwin as modified includes all of the limitations including wherein the receptacle component includes a cylindrical opening that is shaped to fully receive the removable container, and wherein the locking mechanism is configured to [Not taught: slide from the interior of the suitcase] to fully extend across the cylindrical at the opening and close over the removable container when the removable container is received in the opening (See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 1; Fig 1 of Voight, cylindrical opening; Fig 3 of Bhatnagar, the locking mechanism fully cover the opening and includes button 116 and cover 118).
Baldwin as modified does not expressly disclose the locking mechanism is configured to slide from the interior of the suitcase to fully extend across the cylindrical at the opening.
Regarding claim 25, Voight as modified does not expressly disclose wherein, at a third position of the retractable latch between the first position and the second position, the locking mechanism unlocks the removable container without movement to the raised position.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA KAVINI TAMIL whose telephone number is (571)272-6655. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-5:00pm.
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 Jenness can be reached at 571-270-5055. 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.
/JESSICA KAVINI TAMIL/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 10 July 2026
Prosecution Insights