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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, filed June 26th, 2026, with respect to the drawing objections have been considered and are accepted.
Applicant’s arguments see page 5, filed June 26th, 2026, with respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112 have been considered and are accepted.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-8, filed June 26th, 2026, with respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102 & 35 U.S.C. §103 have been considered but are moot because the existing grounds of rejection overcome the Applicant’s amendments, the instant Office action has been made final.
Applicants argues “The Office points to zipper 46 as indicating a pocket. However, Haimoff describes at [77] that “the divider 44 is net-like (or non-porous in the example of Figs. 4 and 5) and is stretched over the frame member 42, and is configured with a zipper 46 near three edges thereof, to thereby expose and allow access to a compartment there behind.” Nothing about this description or Fig. 7A below indicates that there is a volume pocket, much less a pocket that is collapsible when not in use such that it does not interfere with the full use of the shell volume. For at least this reason, Haimoff does not anticipate claim 1.” The examiner disagrees. In paragraph [0022] of the specification, Haimoff teaches “The divider can be configured with one or more pockets . The one or more pockets can be configured at either face of the divider. The one or more pockets can be close-able.” Furthermore, wherein Haimoff teaches the pocket being constructed of a flexible material, the divider pocket can be collapsible when not in use such that it does not interfere with the full use of the first shell volume.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the amendments and / or remarks filed on June 26th, 2026. Claim 10 is cancelled. Claims 1-9, and 11-15 remain pending and are currently being examined.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9, 11, and 14-15, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haimoff (US 20180035775 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Haimoff teaches a luggage case (10) comprising: a pair of shells (12, 14) pivotally connected (24) to move between an open position (Figure 2) and a closed position (Figure 1), each shell (12, 14) defining a major wall (1 and 2 in Annotated Figure 1 below) and a peripheral wall (3 and 4 in Annotated Figure 1 below) defining a peripheral rim (15, 17), the major wall (1 and 2 in Annotated Figure 1 below) and the peripheral wall (3 and 4 in Annotated Figure 1 below) together defining a primary interior shell volume (as seen in Figure 2), and the peripheral rim (15, 17) defining an opening (as seen in Figure 2); a flexible (wherein Haimoff teaches “The divider 44 is net - like ( or non-porous in the example of FIGS . 4 and 5 ) and is stretched over the frame member 42”) divider panel (40) defining a peripheral edge (42) and removably attachable (wherein Haimoff teaches “The frame member 42 has an L - like cross section with a first leg portion 48 configured with openings 50 and lateral snap projections 52”) to the peripheral wall (3 in Annotated Figure 1 below) of the first shell (14) at least one corner (wherein snap projections 52 are disposed along the perimeter of the liner 40 as seen in Figure 5A) and including an upper panel portion (44) extending across the opening and at least one pocket (accessible by zipper 46) defining a pocket interior volume of at least 50% of the primary interior shell volume (wherein the liner covers almost the entirety of the volume within the interior shell portion 14), the pocket (wherein Haimoff teaches “The divider can be configured with one or more pockets . The one or more pockets can be configured at either face of the divider. The one or more pockets can be close-able.”) configured to extend across at least a majority of the area (as seen in Figure 2) of the upper panel portion (44), wherein the pocket (44) is collapsible when not in use such that it does not interfere with the full use of the first shell volume. (Wherein the divider pocket 44 is comprised a flexible material, the user can collapse the pocket when it is not in use to not interfere with the interior volume, for example flipping the divider up and out of the interior of the first shell volume) (Figs. 1-4, 7A; [0022], [0071]-[0072], [0076]-[0077], [0079]-[0080])
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
27
26
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
25
24
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
28
24
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
29
22
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image5.png
419
357
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
24
164
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Haimoff further teaches wherein the pocket (accessible by zipper 46) may extend at least as much as one of 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95% and 100% across the area of the upper panel portion (44). (Wherein it can be seen in Figure 2 that the pocket covers more than 55% of the upper panel portion.) (Figs. 1-4, 7A; [0071]-[0072], [0076])
Regarding Claim 3, Haimoff further teaches wherein the pocket (accessible by zipper 46) extends across substantially (as seen in Figure 2) all of the opening of the shell (14). (Figs. 1-4, 7A; [0071]-[0072], [0076])
Regarding Claim 4, Haimoff further teaches wherein the upper panel portion (44) may extend at least as much as one of 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95% and 100% across the area of the opening (defined by peripheral walls 17) of the shell (14). (Wherein it can be seen in Figure 2 that the upper panel portion covers more than 55% of the opening of the shell.) (Figs. 1-4, 7A; [0071]-[0072], [0076])
Regarding Claim 5, Haimoff further teaches wherein the upper panel portion (44) extends across substantially all of the opening (defined by peripheral rims 17). (Wherein it can be seen in Figure 2 that the upper panel portion covers more than 55% of the opening of the shell.) (Figs. 1-4, 7A; [0071]-[0072], [0076])
Regarding Claim 6, Haimoff further teaches wherein the peripheral edge (42) is removably attachable (wherein Haimoff teaches “wherein at least the inside wall 62 is configured with openings 68 for snapingly receiving the lateral snap projections 52 of the first leg portion 48“) to the peripheral rim (17) of the peripheral wall (3 in Annotated Figure 1 above), or the peripheral edge (42) of the upper panel portion (44) is fitted closely with and adjacent to the peripheral wall (3 in Annotated Figure 1 above). (Fig. 5A; [0079]-[0080])
Regarding Claim 9, Haimoff further teaches wherein an opening (as seen in Figure 2, and accessible by zipper 46) is formed in the upper panel portion (44) for opening into the pocket (accessible by zipper 46). (Figs. 1-4, 7A; [0071]-[0072], [0076])
Regarding Claim 11, Haimoff further teaches wherein upper panel portion (44) of the flexible divider panel (44) is taughtly suspendable across the opening (defined by peripheral rim 17) adjacent to the peripheral rim (17) or the peripheral wall (3 in Annotated Figure 1 above). (Wherein Haimoff teaches “The divider 44 is net - like ( or non-porous in the example of FIGS . 4 and 5 ) and is stretched over the frame member 42”). (Figs. 1-4, 7A; [0077])
Regarding Claim 14, Haimoff further teaches a connection structure (52) configured to couple the flexible divider panel (44) to the shell (14) comprising: a fitting (48) defining a connecting feature (52), and a mounting (62) defining a receiving feature (60), wherein: at least one of the fitting or the mounting (62) is attached to the shell (14), the other of the fitting (48) or the mounting is attached to the divider panel (44), and the fitting (48) selectively couples with the mounting (62) to couple the flexible divider (44) panel to the shell (14). (Figs. 5A-5B; [0079]-[0080])
Regarding Claim 15, Haimoff further teaches wherein the at least one of the fitting or the mounting (62) is attached to the corner (wherein ducts 60 are disposed along the perimeter of the shell 14 as seen in Figure 5A) of the shell (14), and the other of the fitting (48) or the mounting is attached to a corner (wherein snap projections 52 are disposed along the perimeter of the liner 40 as seen in Figure 5A) of the flexible divider panel (44). (Figs. 5A-5B; [0079]-[0080])
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haimoff (US 20180035775 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of McGraw (US 3861504 A).
Regarding Claim 7, Haimoff teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 1 above except; wherein at least one handle is attached to the divider.
McGraw further teaches a removable divider (15), wherein at least one handle (18) is attached. (Figs. 1-2; Col. 1, Lines 50-64)
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the suitcase with a divider as taught by Haimoff, and provide for a divider panel with handles as taught by McGraw. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; one would be motivated to provide for handles attached to a divider panel, in order for the user to conveniently withdraw the panel when they chose to remove it.
Claims 8 and 12-13, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haimoff (US 20180035775 A1), in view of Meersschaert (EP 3351130 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Haimoff teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 1 above except; wherein the flexible divider panel is flexible and includes no structural reinforcement.
Wherein Haimoff teaches a flexible divider panel (44). (Figs. 1-4, 7A; [0076]-[0077])
Meersschaert et al. teaches luggage with (100) a flexible divider panel (140) with no structural reinforcement. (wherein Meersschaert teaches “The internal divider may include a planar panel, preferably a flexible fabric panel, coupled to the peripheral frame”, and it can be seen in Figs. 4-5 that the flexible panel 140 is separated from any structural reinforcement by zipper 172) (Figs. 1-5; [0012], [0018], [0025]-[0026])
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the suitcase with a divider as taught by Haimoff, and provide for a flexible panel with no structural support as taught by Meersschaert et al. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; one would be motivated to provide for a flexible panel with no structural supports, in order for the removable panel to be machine washable for the user.
Regarding Claim 12, Haimoff teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 1 above;
Haimoff further teaches a connection structure (52) configured to connect the flexible divider panel (44) with the shell (44) at a height above a major face (2 in Annotated Figure 1 above), including at least one connecting feature (52) and a corresponding receiver bracket (60), and wherein the connecting feature (42) is removably receivable in at least one of a corresponding attachment point (68) formed on the receiver bracket (60). (Figs. 5A-5B; [0079]-[0080])
Haimoff does not teach attaching a flexible divider panel at variable heights.
Meersschaert et al. teaches a flexible divider panel (140) connectable (180, 190) at variable heights. (Wherein Meersschaert et al. teaches “Each buckle 190 may adjustably grip its corresponding strap 180 to position the internal divider 140 at a desired distance or height.”) (Figs. 2-5;[0033])
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the suitcase with a divider as taught by Haimoff, and substitute the divider panel connection mechanism for a connection mechanism that enable suspending the panel at variable heights as taught by Meersschaert et al. Wherein using simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; one would be motivated to substitute a fixed height connection mechanism for a divider panel for a connection mechanism that enables variable heights, in order for the user to selectively choose the height of the panel within a luggage shell volume to accommodate the contents they are transporting.
Regarding Claim 13, Haimoff, modified above, teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 12 above;
Haimoff further teaches wherein a receiver bracket (60) is integrally formed with the shell (14). (Wherein Haimoff teaches “, the base member 12 , and the cover member 14 , are configured at their respective edges 15 and 17 with a frame receptacle shaped as a duct 60 extending between and inside wall 62 and an outside wall 64 , wherein at least the inside wall 62 is configured with openings 68 for snapingly receiving the lateral snap projections 52 of the first leg portion 48 .”) (Figs. 5A-5B; [0079]-[0080])
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haimoff (US 20180035775 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, Johnson (US 20120240521 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Haimoff teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 1 above except; wherein a top rim of a panel of the pocket is not aligned with at least one portion of the peripheral edge.
Johnson further teaches luggage (1) with a removable panel (3) wherein the top rim (1 in Annotated Figure 9 below) of the panel (3) is not aligned with at least a portion (wherein tabs 11 project from the top rim of the panel 3) of the peripheral edge (2 in Annotated Figure 9 below). (Figs. 1-2, 8-9; [0042])
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the suitcase with a divider as taught by Haimoff, and provide the top rim of a panel not aligning with a portion of the panel peripheral edge as taught by Johnson. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; one would be motivated to provide for a different profile for the top rim of a panel, in order for the user to conveniently grasp the panel of during insertion or removal.
PNG
media_image7.png
25
164
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
29
22
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
27
26
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image8.png
369
505
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Samsonite (CA 3220926 A1), teaches luggage with an interior divider.
Sheikh (CA 2635328 C), teaches luggage with an interior divider.
Applicant's amendment doesn’t overcome the existing grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 E 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN R CAUDILL whose telephone number is (303)297-4349. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30-5:30 MT.
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 on (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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/JUSTIN CAUDILL/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/DON M ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733