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 .
This is a final Office action responsive to the reply filed on 04/20/2026.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 12-14 and 18 have been amended.
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 04/20/2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. A legible copy of each cited foreign patent document for CN201550709U, EP2710916A1 and WO2010122247A3 are required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 5 “each shell” should be - - each of the shells - -.
Claim 1, line 5 “each elongated strip member” should be - - each of the elongated strip members - -.
Claim 1, line 11 “the first edge” should be - - the first inner edge - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen (US Patent No. 7,451,872).
Regarding claim 1, Allen discloses a luggage case comprising:
a first shell and a second shell (see annotated Fig. 14);
a continuous closure assembly selectively joining the first and second shells (see annotated Fig. 14) and comprising:
an elongated strip member associated with each shell, each elongated strip member including a first strip portion and a second strip portion joined along a first common edge (see annotated Fig. 14);
the first strip portion including engagement features comprising zipper teeth (76, 78) secured on the first strip portion along a first inner edge opposite the first common edge, and the first strip portion is attached near an edge of the respective shell between the first edge and the first common edge (see annotated Fig. 14); and
the second strip portion defines an inner edge, the second strip portion extending over at least a portion of a width of the first strip portion to cover an attachment of the first strip portion to the respective shell (see annotated Fig. 14).
Allen does not disclose the second strip portion is formed integrally with the first strip portion. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the second strip portion is formed integrally with the first strip portion, in order to facilitate during manufacturing, since it has been held that the term “integrally” is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as fastening and welding. In re Hotte, 177 USPQ 326, 328 (CCPA 1973).
Regarding claim 2, Allen discloses, wherein the first strip portion is attached to the respective shell by a line of stitching (see annotated Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 3, Allen discloses, wherein the second strip portion is free from direct attachment to the respective shell and can be folded back to expose the attachment of the first strip portion to the respective shell (see annotated Fig. 14).
PNG
media_image1.png
578
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 4-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen (US Patent No. 7,451,872), in view of Hexels (US Patent No. 6,691,326).
Regarding claim 4, Allen discloses the claimed invention except for the second strip portion includes a protective material.
However, Hexels teaches a protective material (protective layer 7) (see Col. 2, lines 29-49).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a protective layer from Hexels on the second strip portion from Allen for sealing against ingress of chemical or biological substances but also for gas-impermeability and waterproofness.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Allen in view of Hexels discloses, wherein the second strip portion is made entirely of a protective material and attached to the first strip portion along the first common edge (can be applied to any surfaces, see Figs. 1-3 and Col. 2, lines 29-49 from Hexels).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Allen in view of Hexels discloses, wherein the protective material is a thermoplastic material applied to or impregnated into at least part of the second strip portion (polyurethane, see Col. 2, lines 29-49 from Hexels).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Allen in view of Hexels discloses, wherein a width of the protective material extends partially, or entirely, across a width of the second strip portion (can be applied to any surfaces, see Figs. 1-3 and Col. 2, lines 29-49 from Hexels).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Allen in view of Hexels discloses, wherein the protective material may be applied to an upper side of the second strip portion (can be applied to any surfaces, see Figs. 1-3 and Col. 2, lines 29-49 from Hexels).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Allen in view of Hexels discloses, wherein the protective material is applied to or impregnated into at least part of the first strip portion (can be applied to any surfaces, see Figs. 1-3 and Col. 2, lines 29-49 from Hexels).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Allen in view of Hexels discloses, wherein a width of the protective material extends partially, or entirely, across a width of the first strip portion (can be applied to any surfaces, see Figs. 1-3 and Col. 2, lines 29-49 from Hexels).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Allen in view of Hexels discloses, wherein the protective material may be applied to or impregnated in at least part of a lower side of the first strip portion (can be applied to any surfaces, see Figs. 1-3 and Col. 2, lines 29-49 from Hexels).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Allen in view of Hexels discloses, wherein the protective material is positioned between the first strip portion and the respective shell (can be applied to any surfaces, see Figs. 1-3 and Col. 2, lines 29-49 from Hexels).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Allen in view of Hexels discloses, wherein the protective material defines an edge between the first common edge and the attachment of the first strip portion to the respective shell (can be applied to any surfaces, see Figs. 1-3 and Col. 2, lines 29-49 from Hexels).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Allen in view of Hexels discloses, wherein the protective material defines an edge between the attachment of the first strip portion to the respective shell and the edge of the respective shell (can be applied to any surfaces, see Figs. 1-3 and Col. 2, lines 29-49 from Hexels).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Allen in view of Hexels discloses, wherein the protective material extends over the first common edge (can be applied to any surfaces, see Figs. 1-3 and Col. 2, lines 29-49 from Hexels).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Allen in view of Hexels discloses, wherein the protective material extends partially or entirely along a length of the second strip portion (can be applied to any surfaces, see Figs. 1-3 and Col. 2, lines 29-49 from Hexels).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Allen in view of Hexels discloses, wherein the protective material extends partially or entirely along a length of the first strip portion (can be applied to any surfaces, see Figs. 1-3 and Col. 2, lines 29-49 from Hexels).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Allen in view of Hexels discloses, wherein the protective material defines an edge at the attachment of the first strip portion to the respective shell (can be applied to any surfaces, see Figs. 1-3 and Col. 2, lines 29-49 from Hexels).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 5 and 6, filed 04/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Allen discloses the first strip portion including engagement features comprising zipper teeth (76, 78) secured on the first strip portion along a first inner edge opposite the first common edge, and the second strip portion (see annotated Fig. 14); and
Allen does not disclose the second strip portion is formed integrally with the first strip portion. It has been held that the term “integrally” is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as fastening and welding. In re Hotte, 177 USPQ 326, 328 (CCPA 1973).
Examiner’s Comment
In view of applicant’s amendments to the claims submitted in the reply filed on 04/20/2026, the claim rejections under 35 USC § 102 indicated in the prior Office action have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LOUIS A MERCADO whose telephone number is (571)270-5388. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Jason W. San can be reached at 571-272-6531. 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.
/LOUIS A. MERCADO/
Examiner
Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights