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 Amendment
The Amendments filed November 11, 2025 have been entered. Claims 1-12 and 15-18 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 11, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s claim 1 arguments about the teachings of Lai, CN 203441212 U, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The use of broadly claimed apparatus features and their engagement without accompanying detailed structure allows for the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations in question. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Specifically, page 7 of 16 arguments, regarding the claim 1 line 10 limitation “multiple movement paths relative to the base seat”. Claim 1 does not recite “at least two different lines” or “along multiple directions” as further limitations on the cited multiple movement paths. Merriam-Webster defines multiple as more than one. Merriam-Webster defines path as course or route. The movement of Lai’s displacement unit (14) meets that broadly claimed limitation by moving right and left [0036] therefore along multiple movement paths. At least two different lines of the movement paths, as argued on page 9 of 16, are not claimed.
Throughout the arguments, the number of buckles and fasteners are emphasized to be three in number. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced; the zippers of Lai perform the same function in the same manner as the fastener assemblies of the instant invention, therefore a new and unexpected result is not produced by a third fastener assembly. While the Applicant disagrees with the applicability of Harza on Page 9 of 16, the Examiner’s reaffirms the applicability of Harza in the rejection regarding the buckles or fastener assemblies, which instant Figure 9 depicts are triplicated in the instant invention, and notes any “new and unexpected result” would likely manifest in the structure of the displacement operating unit, fixing unit, or anti-rotation device.
The “T-shaped or cross-shaped junction” and its resulting “at least two different lines of the movement paths” or “three movement paths” argued on pages 9-11 of 16 are not claimed.
The Applicant’s arguments regarding Lai’s anti-rotation device are predicated on different lines of the movement paths which are not claimed.
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, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai, CN 203441212 U.
Regarding claim 1, Lai teaches a multi-directional lock (Fig 2) comprising:
a base seat (face shell 1; bottom shell 2);
at least three buckles (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Lai depicts one buckle marked with a dashed line; In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced; the buckles of Lai perform the same function in the same manner as the buckles of the instant invention, therefore a new and unexpected result is not produced by a third buckle) mounted on the base seat and spaced apart from each other (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Lai depicts the buckles to be mounted on 2 and spaced apart from each other); each one of the at least three buckles having a fastener locked state and a fastener unlocked state ([0038] discusses the locked and unlocked states of locking hook 6);
PNG
media_image1.png
709
679
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Lai
at least three fastener assemblies ([0004] discusses the fastener assemblies to the zippers; In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced; the zippers of Lai perform the same function in the same manner as the fastener assemblies of the instant invention, therefore a new and unexpected result is not produced by a third fastener assembly), respectively inserted in the at least three buckles (via zipper insertion hole 101); the fastener assembly inserted in said buckle being detachable from said buckle when each one of the at least three buckles is in the fastener unlocked state [004];
a displacement operating unit (push block 14) movably mounted on the base seat [0036]; the displacement operating unit having
multiple movement paths relative to the base seat (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Lai depicts the multiple movement paths relative to 2); each one of the movement paths corresponding to one of the at least three buckles (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Lai depicts the movement paths corresponding to buckles); the buckle corresponding to the movement path switched to the fastener unlocked state when the displacement operating unit moves along one of the movement paths ([0038] discusses the operation of the locking mechanism resulting from the movement of 14);
a fixing unit (lock core 11; lock core sleeve 12; clutch block 13) stopping the displacement operating unit from moving relative to the base seat toward any of the at least three buckles [0033]; and
an anti-rotation device (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Lai; it is a device because it is a piece of a mechanism thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 1f of device and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term which prevents rotation) mounted between the displacement operating unit (14) and the base seat (1; 2) and stopping the displacement operating unit from rotating relative to the base seat (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Lai depicts the engagement between 14 and the anti-rotation device to be structured such that it would prevent or stop any relative rotation between 14 and the anti-rotation device).
Regarding claim 2, Lai teaches the multi-directional lock as claimed in claim 1, wherein each one of the movement paths (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Lai) of the displacement operating unit (14) is toward or away from the corresponding buckle (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Lai depicts the movement paths of 14 to be toward or away from a corresponding buckle).
Regarding claim 3, Lai teaches the multi-directional lock as claimed in claim 1 further including a limit device (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Lai; it is a limit device because it is a piece of a mechanism thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 1f of device and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term which limits movement along the axis of symmetry) mounted between the displacement operating unit (14) and the base seat (1; 2; Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Lai depicts the limit device between 14 and 1;2), and restricting the displacement operating unit that needs to restore back to an origin before moving toward another one of the at least three buckles (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Lai depicts the limit device structured to restrict the movement of 14 relative to 1 in order to restore 14 back to origin before moving toward another buckle).
Regarding claim 4, Lai teaches the multi-directional lock as claimed in claim 2, further including a limit device (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Lai; it is a device because it is a piece of a mechanism thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 1f of device and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term which limits movement along the axis of symmetry) mounted between the displacement operating unit (14) and the base seat (1; 2; Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Lai depicts the limit device between 14 and 1;2), and restricting the displacement operating unit that needs to restore back to an origin ([0038] discusses a symmetrical apparatus arrangement and the origin is the central axis of symmetry where 14 is located before being moved; Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Lai depicts 14 only being able to translate linearly from the origin) before moving toward another one of the at least three buckles (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Lai depicts the limit device structured to restrict the movement of 14 relative to 1 in order to restore 14 back to origin before moving toward another buckle).
Regarding claim 5, Lai teaches the multi-directional lock as claimed in claim 3, wherein the limit device (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Lai) limits each one of the movement paths (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Lai) of the displacement operating unit (14) to be a straight line extending from the origin ([0038] discusses a symmetrical apparatus arrangement and the origin is the central axis of symmetry where 14 is located before being moved; Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Lai depicts 14 only being able to translate linearly from the origin).
Regarding claim 6, Lai teaches the multi-directional lock as claimed in claim 4, wherein the limit device (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Lai) limits each one of the movement paths (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Lai) of the displacement operating unit (14) to be a straight line extending from the origin ([0038] discusses a symmetrical apparatus arrangement and the origin is the central axis of symmetry where 14 is located before being moved; Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Lai depicts 14 only being able to translate linearly from the origin).
Regarding claim 7, Lai teaches the multi-directional lock as claimed in claim 1 further including a reset device (first return spring 15) mounted between the displacement operating unit (14) and the base seat (1; 2; see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Lai) and tend to move the displacement operating unit to an origin ([0038] discusses a symmetrical apparatus arrangement and the origin is the central axis of symmetry where 14 is located before being moved; see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Lai; [0032] discusses how 15 engages between lock block 5 and movable block 4 and this engagement results in the locking and unlocking of the locking mechanism and the centering to origin movement of 14 or as a result of the away from origin movement of 14).
Regarding claim 8, Lai teaches the multi-directional lock as claimed in claim 6, further including a reset device (first return spring 15) mounted between the displacement operating unit (14) and the base seat (1; 2; see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Lai) and tend to move the displacement operating unit to the origin ([0038] discusses a symmetrical apparatus arrangement and the origin is the central axis of symmetry where 14 is located before being moved; see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Lai; [0032] discusses how 15 engages between lock block 5 and movable block 4 and this engagement results in the locking and unlocking of the locking mechanism and the centering to origin movement of 14 or as a result of the away from origin movement of 14).
Regarding claim 9, Lai teaches the multi-directional lock as claimed in claim 1, wherein the fixing unit (11; 12; 13) is mounted on the displacement operating unit (14; see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Lai) and comprises an insertion part (12), and the insertion part is configured to be inserted into the base seat (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Lai depicts 12 inserted into 1;2) to stop the displacement operating unit from moving toward any of the at least three buckles relative to the base seat (12 encompasses 11 which locks 14 from moving toward any of the buckles).
Regarding claim 10, Lai teaches the multi-directional lock as claimed in claim 8, wherein the fixing unit (11; 12; 13) is mounted on the displacement operating unit (14; see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Lai) and comprises an insertion part (12), and the insertion part is configured to be inserted into the base seat (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Lai depicts 12 inserted into 1;2) to stop the displacement operating unit from moving toward any of the at least three buckles relative to the base seat (12 encompasses 11 which locks 14 from moving toward any of the buckles).
Regarding claim 11, Lai teaches the multi-directional lock as claimed in claim 1, wherein the fixing unit (11; 12; 13) includes at least one lock (11).
Regarding claim 12, Lai teaches the multi-directional lock as claimed in claim 10, wherein the fixing unit (11; 12; 13) includes at least one lock (11).
Regarding claim 15, Lai teaches the multi-directional lock as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least three buckles (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Lai depicts one buckle marked with a dashed line) are annularly spaced around the displacement operating unit (14; Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Lai depicts the buckles spaced around 14 in the same manner as the instant invention therefore Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Lai depicts the buckles to be annularly spaced).
Regarding claim 16, Lai teaches the multi-directional lock as claimed in claim 12, wherein the at least three buckles (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Lai depicts one buckle marked with a dashed line) are annularly spaced around the displacement operating unit (14; Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Lai depicts the buckles spaced around 14 in the same manner as the instant invention therefore Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Lai depicts the buckles to be annularly spaced).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai, CN 203441212 U, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lai, US 20150176306 A1 (hereinafter Lai-6306).
Regarding claim 17, Lai teaches luggage with multiple fastener assemblies ([0004] discusses the fastener assemblies to the zippers) which lockingly engage a corresponding buckle (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Lai depicts one buckle marked with a dashed line; [0038]); a multi-directional lock as claimed in claim 1; (It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that a luggage zipper is associated with an opening part of that luggage and multiple zippers would indicate multiple opening parts) and after one of the fastener assemblies is separated from its corresponding buckle, the corresponding opening part is openable.
Lai does not explicitly teach luggage including: a luggage body comprising multiple opening parts; wherein the at least three fastener assemblies respectively correspond to the multiple opening parts of the luggage body; after one of the at least three fastener assemblies is separated from the corresponding buckle, the corresponding opening part is openable.
Lai-6306 teaches luggage (Fig 2) including: a luggage body (case body A1) comprising multiple opening parts (first cover A3; second cover A4); a multi-directional lock (locking unit 70), wherein the at least three fastener assemblies (pull tabs 23; In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced; the fastener assemblies of Lai-6306 perform the same function in the same manner as the fastener assemblies of the instant invention, therefore a new and unexpected result is not produced by a third fastener assembly) respectively correspond to the multiple opening parts of the luggage body (Fig 2 depicts 23 corresponding to the multiple opening parts); after one of the at least three fastener assemblies is separated from the corresponding buckle (Fig 10 depicts the buckles to be the apparatus engaging with locking piece A24), the corresponding opening part is openable [0031].
The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that “‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
See MPEP § 2143 for a discussion of the rationales listed above along with examples illustrating how the cited rationales may be used to support a finding of obviousness. See also MPEP § 2144 - § 2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale B, to substitute the luggage disclosed by Lai with the luggage of Lai-6306. The prior art contains lockable luggage which differs from the claimed device by the substitution of a component (the luggage disclosed by Lai) with another component (the luggage of Lai-6303). Luggage with multiple opening parts locked by a multi-directional lock is known in the art, as evidenced by both Lai and Lai-6306. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to explicitly specify luggage structure in order to better define locking requirements. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another with a reasonable expectation of success and the results of the substitution would have been predictable, namely a multi-compartment luggage apparatus with a multi-directional lock locking the multiple luggage openings in the same manner as the lock disclosed by Lai.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai, CN 203441212 U, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Irwin et al., US 9052992 B2 (hereinafter Irwin).
Regarding claim 18, Lai teaches a multi-directional lock as claimed in claim 1.
Lai does not teach a cabinet including: multiple cabinet doors; a multi-directional lock as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least three fastener assemblies are respectively connected to the multiple cabinet doors; after one of the at least three fastener assemblies is separated from the corresponding buckle, the corresponding cabinet door is openable.
Irwin teaches a cabinet (storage unit; Fig 1) including: multiple cabinet doors (door 136); a multi-directional lock which operates multiple locking mechanisms (securement feature 140 centrally controls multiple locks in multiple directions from control unit 144; Fig 1), wherein the at least three fastener assemblies are respectively connected to the multiple cabinet doors (Fig 1 depicts the fastener assemblies in the same manner as depicted in instant figure 19); after one of the at least three fastener assemblies is separated from the corresponding buckle, the corresponding cabinet door is openable (col 5, line 42-col 6, line 2 discusses how 140 engages with 136 to control the opening of 136; col 9, lines 29-28 discusses additional structure and functionality).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale B, to substitute the luggage disclosed by Lai with the cabinet of Huang. The prior art contains a lockable cabinet which differs from the claimed device by the substitution of a component (the luggage disclosed by Lai) with another component (the cabinet of Huang). Cabinets with multiple opening parts locked by a multi-directional lock are known in the art, as evidenced by both Huang, US 11131138 B2, and CN 110811166 A. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute Lai’s luggage with Huang’s cabinet in order to provide a mechanical locking structure to a cabinet as an alternative construction to better satisfy diverse customer requirements. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another with a reasonable expectation of success and the results of the substitution would have been predictable, namely a multi-compartment cabinet with a multi-directional lock locking the multiple openings in the same manner as the lock disclosed by Lai.
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 STEVEN A TULLIA whose telephone number is (571)272-6434. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 ET.
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, Kristina Fulton can be reached on (571)272-7376. 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.
/STEVEN A TULLIA/Examiner, Art Unit 3675