DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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.
The term “substantially” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) and (a) (2) as being anticipated by US Publication 2019/0133274 by Haimoff (Here forth “Haimoff”).
Regarding claim 1, Haimoff discloses an injection molded shell for a luggage case (Abstract of Haimoff, the case shells are constructed of injection molded shells) comprising:
an injection molded shell defining a rim portion having inside and outside surfaces (Fig A of Haimoff, the injection molded shells have a rim portion wherein the zippers attached and inherently have an inside and outside surface);
an elongated zip member including a tape member having opposing first and second surfaces (Para 58 and Fig A of Haimoff, the zipper fastener 150 is an elongated zipper member that has a tape that extends around the length of the rims of the shells of the suitcase), and opposing inner and outer edges defining a width, with teeth positioned along the inner edge, and defining a length (Para 58 and Fig A of Haimoff, zipper tapes inherently have and inner and outer opposed width and length, they consist of teeth and a tape portion 152); and
wherein the opposing second surface of at least part of a first portion of the tape member is in-mould-bonded to the inside surface of the rim portion (Para 58 of Haimoff, the first portion of the tape member 152 is in-mould-bonded to the shell during the molding process).
PNG
media_image1.png
579
886
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig A- Examiner Annotated Fig 1A of Haimoff
Regarding claim 2, Haimoff further disclose wherein:
the first surface of the tape member is unaffixed to the rim portion and/or the tape member is in-mould-bonded to the inside surface of the rim portion, and/or the in-mould- bonding is substantially continuous along a portion of the length of the tape member (Fig 1B and 1C of Haimoff, the tape portion of the zipper 152 is in-mould bonded substantially continuously along a portion of the length of the tape member 152 ).
Regarding claim 3, Haimoff further discloses, wherein:
the injection molded shell is made of a plastic mold material (Abstract of Haimoff, the shell is made of injection molded plastic);
the tape member (Fig 1C of Haimoff, support member 152 is the tape member 152) includes:
the first portion adjacent to the outer edge of the tape member, and a second portion (Fig 1C of Haimoff, the first portion of the tape member 152 is the portion attached to one of the shells and the second portion is the portion of tape attached to the other shell ); and
the first portion of the tape member is predominately made of a first material that is compatible with and in-mould-bonds to the plastic mold material (Para 58 of Haimoff, the support member/tape 152 is moulded to the plastic injection moulded shell and is therefore made of a material that is compatible with in-mould-bonds to plastic mold material).
Regarding claim 11, Haimoff further discloses wherein:
the outer edge of the tape member extends along the inside surface of the rim portion (Para 59 of Haimoff, the outer edge of the tape member 154 includes portion 152 and it is embedded within the shell periphery so it is along the inside surface of the rim portion).
Regarding claim 12, Haimoff disclose wherein:
the injection molded shell is formed in a mold (Fig 5A of Haimoff, the shells are formed with an inner and outer mold 304) comprising:
a mold cavity defining an inner mold surface, the inner mold surface engaging the first surface of the tape member (Fig 5A-G of Haimoff, the mold cavity has an inner mold 304 upon which the moldable plastic sheet with the zipper tape attached is placed, and thereby engages with the first surface of the tape member when the tape member is placed within the mold 304), and defining an outer mold surface, the outer mold surface engaging the second surface of the tape member (Fig 5A-G of Haimoff, the mold cavity as an outer mold 304 upon which the moldable plastic sheet with the zipper tape attached is placed, and thereby engages with the second surface of the tape member when the tape member is placed within the mold 304); and
the inner mold surface and the outer edge of the first portion arranged for mold material to flow and contact the outer edge, the outer edge diverting the mold material over the second surface of the tape member (Fig 5A-G of Haimoff).
Regarding claim 13, Haimoff further discloses, wherein:
a channel is formed in the inner mold surface; at least part of the outer edge of the first portion is received in the channel (Fig 5A, the lower mold has a channel formed at the bottom of the shell mold portion, and a part of the outer edge of the first portion of the tape member is received in the channel); and
upon injection molding, the mold material flows into the channel to engage the outer edge and is diverted over the second surface of the tape member (Fig 5A-G of Haimoff, the mold material when flowing into the channel of the inner mold and the channel engages the outer edge of the tape member).
Regarding claim 14, Haimoff further discloses wherein:
the channel is concave (Fig 5A of Haimoff, the upper mold 204 has a concave channel), and
the outer edge of the tape member is positioned against an interior surface of the channel prior to injection molding (Fig 5A of Haimoff, when the upper mold contacts the tape, it contacts the outer edge when the shell material is positioned against an interior surface of the channel prior to the end of the injection molding process).
Regarding claim 15, Haimoff further discloses wherein:
the injection molded shell (Fig A of Haimoff) includes:
a first long side (Fig A of Haimoff), and
the elongated zip member extends along the first long side, the elongated zip member defining a first cutout positioned on the first long side (Para 98 of Haimoff, there can be a first cut out on the first long side).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haimoff alternately in view of US Publication 2004/0244157 by Matsuda (Here forth “Matsuda”).
Regarding claim 4, Haimoff further discloses that the tape member is woven (Para 63 of Haimoff, the tape member can be woven and woven fabrics inherently has warps and wefts to create the fabric) the tape member is woven and includes warp yarns extending along the length of the tape member and weft yarns extending across a width of the tape member (Para 63 of Haimoff, the tape member can be woven and inherently has warps and wefts to create fabric along the length and width of the tape member); the first portion of the tape member includes the weft yarns, the first warp yarns, and the first material (Para 63 of Haimoff, the tape member can be woven and inherently has warps and wefts to create fabric on the first portion of the tape member and can also include the first material; Para 58 of Haimoff, the first material can be a part of the first potion of the tape).
Haimoff may not expressly disclose the following Limitations:
Limitation A: tape member is made of woven warp/weft yarns
Matsuda discloses a similar fastener tape member that teaches Limitation A, wherein;
the tape member is woven and includes warp yarns extending along the length of the tape member and weft yarns extending across a width of the tape member (Abstract of Matsuda, the tape member is woven with warp and weft yarns); and
the first portion of the tape member includes the weft yarns, the first warp yarns, and the first material (Para 16 of Matsuda, the full tape member is woven with warp and weft yarns which would include the first portion).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Haimoff and Matsuda before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the fastener tape members of Haimoff to take the material of the tape taught by Haimoff and use the weft/warp pattern in constructing the full tape, as taught by Matsuda, to advantageously increase rigidity as this type of weaving provides rigidity and catching of the tape (Para 16).
Additionally, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the fastener tape material be woven instead of that taught by Haimoff, because Applicant has not disclosed why this fastener tape construction method provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solve a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with Haimoff’s tape member (details above) because they both would have the same reconfigurability, and operability. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Haimoff’s tape (details above) to obtain the invention as claimed.
Claims 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haimoff in view of Matsuda and Foreign Publication CN1266325 by Mitsuo (Here forth “Mitsuo”).
Regarding claim 5, Haimoff further discloses wherein:
the outer edge defines a first thickness dimension along at least a portion of the tape member (Fig A of Haimoff, the outer edge defines a first thickness dimension along a portion that attaches to the tape member 152), [Not taught: the first thickness dimension being greater than a thickness dimension of the first portion adjacent the outer edge].
Limitation B: outer edge first thickness dimension being greater than a thickness dimension of the first portion adjacent the outer edge
Mitsuo disclose a similar fastener tape that teaches Limitation B, outer edge first thickness dimension being greater than a thickness dimension of the first portion adjacent the outer edge (Fig 1 of Mitsuo, the first thickness of bead portion 7 of the tape is a greater thickness than the rest of the weft and warp portions 5 of the fastener tape; the outer edge is defined by a bead 7 defining the first thickness dimension; the bead 7 is defined by at least one first warp yarn 7 having a diameter greater than others 5 of the first warp yarns 5; the bead 7 is an outer-most warp yarn of the first warp yarns; Abstract, the bead 7 defines a boundary between the in-mould bonded outer surface of the first portion and the inner surface of the first portion as the bead 7 is attached to the shell portion inner surface when modifying Haimoff).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Haimoff as modified and Mitsuo before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the fastener tape members of Haimoff as modified to have the outer edge first thickness be a bead with a greater thickness than the first portion, as taught by Mitsuo, to advantageously provide structure and prevent wrinkling (Abstract and Fig 1 of Mitsuo).
Regarding claim 6, Haimoff as modified includes all of the limitations including wherein: the outer edge is defined by a bead defining the first thickness dimension (See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 5; Fig 1 of Mitsuo, the outer edge of the fastener tape member contains the bead 7 that defines the first thickness).
Regarding claim 7, Haimoff as modified includes all of the limitations including wherein;
the bead is defined by at least one first warp yarn having a diameter greater than others of the first warp yarns (See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 5, Fig 1 of Mitsuo, the bead 7 has a greater diameter than the other first wary yarn 5).
Regarding claim 8, Haimoff further discloses wherein:
the bead is predominately made of a same material as the injection molded shell (Para 16 of Haimoff, the tape member that includes the bead may me mixed with some of the same material used to make the plastic molded shell; the bead added to the modified Haimoff would be a part of the zipper tape construction and the material of the bead and other portions of the zipper tape would have the same material).
Regarding claim 9, Haimoff as modified includes all of the limitations including wherein: the bead is an outer-most warp yarn of the first warp yarns (See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 5; the bead 7 is the outer-most warp yarn of the first warp yarns 31).
Regarding claim 10, Haimoff as modified includes all of the limitations including
the bead defines a boundary between the in-mould bonded outer surface of the first portion and the inner surface of the first portion (See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 5; Abstract, the bead 7 defines a boundary between the in-mould bonded outer surface of the first portion and the inner surface of the first portion as the bead 7 is attached to the shell portion inner surface when modifying Haimoff).
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 04 December 2025