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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments dated 4/2/26 have been entered. Claims 1, 19, and 20 have been amended. Claims 9-11 and 21-23 have been cancelled. Claims 24-26 have been newly added.
This leaves claims 1-8, 12-20, and 24-26 currently active and pending.
The rejection below has been amended to reflect the amendments to the claims.
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.
Claims 1-8, 12-20, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al. (US 2020/0094517) in view of Tsai et al. (US 2016/0159013).
Regarding claims 1-7, 18-20, and 24-26, Cai teaches a luggage, comprising a fiber-reinforced material of a natural fiber material (Cai para 29; fig 1, item 3) in a matrix material (Cai para 92 fig 1, item 17) where the fibers may be unidirectional (oriented in a single direction) and embedded in/impregnated by the matrix material (Cai para 16, 32). As Cai teaches the same structure as claimed, it may be considered to be a ‘hard-shell’ or ‘part’ of a luggage system.
While Cai teaches that the fibrous mat may comprise one or more individual layers (plies) of aligned fibers or rovings, Cai does not explicitly teach that there are multi-ply ‘layers’ where each layer itself comprises two or more plies of parallel-oriented unidirectional fibers.
Cai and Tsai are related in the field of multi-ply laminated comprising aligned fibers. Tsai teaches utilizing ‘sub-laminate modules’ (Applicant’s ‘layers’) of at least four plies where the first ply has fibers extending in a first direction, the second ply has fibers extending in a second direction, the third ply has fibers extending in a third direction, and the fourth ply may be the same orientation as the first ply (arranged along a respective axis) (Tsai para 14) where an angle between the fibers of the two plies is less than 90°, with examples at 25° (Tsai para 15, 47, 72, fig 2) (this would meet both the n = 2 and the n = 3 embodiments, where the two or three plies are not parallel) noting that due to the unbalanced nature of the plies of the sub-laminate module (‘layer’) it achieves improved homogenization with fewer plies, which in turn reduces weight and thickness without sacrificing structural integrity (Tsai para 41). It would therefore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the layers of Cai to be the muli-ply ‘sub-laminate modules’ of Tsai because this would provide the fiber-reinforced laminate of Cai with improved homogenization, and thus a reduction in weight and thickness without sacrificing structural integrity.
Regarding claim 8, Cai teaches a luggage as above for claim 1. Cai further teaches the unidirectional fibers may be continuous (Cai para 31).
Regarding claim 12, Cai teaches a luggage as above for claim 1. Cai further teaches that the fibers may be jute, a bast fiber (Cai para 29).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Cai teaches a luggage as above for claim 1. Cai further teaches that the fibers may be a mix, therefore there are embodiments wherein the material composition of the natural fiber material varies between at least two sets of unidirectional fibers, which would also result in a variation of physical properties, such as density due to being different materials (Cai para 29).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Cai teaches a luggage as above for claim 1. Cai further teaches that the matrix material may be an amorphic, or semi-crystalline thermoplastic such as polyamide-6 (nylon 6) and polycarbonate (Cai para 47). Because Cai teaches the same materials as utilized by Applicant on page 13 of the As-Filed specification, it would be expected to be fully capable of being biodegradable. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), see MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 17, Cai teaches a luggage as above for claim 1. Cai is further silent to the presence of aluminum in the shell. However it is noted that AlSi fibers are an option, but not required at paragraph 29.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8, 12-20, and 24-26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA B FIGG whose telephone number is (571)272-9882. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9a-6p Mountain.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/L.B.F/Examiner, Art Unit 1781 6/11/2026
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights