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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1 – 4, 6, 8, 9, and 11 in the reply filed on July 27, 2026, is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Group I, a case made from a foam self-reinforced woven fabric composite, wherein the foam layer is the inner layer facing the cavity of the case and the woven fabric is on the outer layer, and Group II, a case also made from a foam self-reinforced woven fabric composite, however, the foam layer is the outer layer and the woven fabric in the inner layer, facing the cavity of the case, should not be separated. This is not found persuasive because the claims are to a case wherein the inner layer forms a cavity into which an item can be placed, and the outer layer is on the outside of the closed cavity. The orientation of the layers is important to the final structure of the claimed case. It has not been established on record that it would be obvious to use either layer as the inner or outer layer. Thus, prior art that has the foam layer on the inner surface would not be readily applied to the claims that require an outer layer made from foam without an additional reference. Therefore, even though the search would be in similar classes/subclasses, the two inventions would have different fields of search related to the orientation of the layers. Should the applicant wish to concede that it is obvious to use either layer in a case as the outer or inner layer, then rejoinder would be considered.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 13-15,18, 20, 21, 23, and 43-47 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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(s) 1 – 4, 6, 8, 9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bladd-Symms et al. (US 2019/0054985 A1) in view of Bladd-Symms et al. (WO 2020/053599).
Bladd-Symms et al. ‘985 discloses a case for hobby or sports equipment made from an inner portion (i.e., inner layer) of expanded polypropylene foam and an outer portion (i.e., outerlayer) formed from a self-reinforcing polypropylene layer (abstract). The self-reinforced layer includes woven polypropylene that are not interwoven in the same way as traditional reinforced materials so that the layers can be stitched through without pulling through fibers (paragraph 146). The case can be formed into different shapes with curved walls or walls with different angles or contours (paragraph 93). Further the inner and outer layers can include any number of layers such as having different density foam layers or a felt layer can be used as the innermost layer (paragraph 244). Additionally, the outer layer can include two or more layers of a given polypropylene layer and may include a composite of two or more layers of different types of polypropylene materials (paragraph 84). The outer layer may include two to six consolidated thermoformed layers (paragraph 107). The outermost layer is considered a coating layer.
Bladd-Symms et al. ‘985 doesn’t disclose using microcellular polypropylene foam. Bladd-Symms et al. ‘599 is drawn to a foam self-reinforced polypropylene composite (abstract). Bladd-Symms et al. ‘599 discloses that the foam layer can be expanded polyethylene, ethylene vinyl acetate, microcellular polypropylene (page 2, lines 25 – 30). Thus, it would have been obvious to substitute similar olefin foams such as microcellular polypropylene foams, as shown as being equivalent by Bladd-Symms et al. ‘599, for the expanded polyethylene foam disclosed by Bladd-Symms et al. ‘985. Therefore, claims 1 – 4, 6, and 8 are rejected.
Additionally, Bladd-Symms et al. ‘985 discloses the inner portion has a thickness of 3mm to 50mm, preferably 5mm to 25mm (paragraph 109). And the overall case has a thickness between 8mm and 50mm (paragraph 380). Also, Bladd-Symms et al. suggest that the inner layer can have a density of 20 to 80 g/liter, which is equivalent to 20 to 80 kg/m3 (paragraph 108). Thus, claim 9 is rejected.
Bladd-Symms et al. ‘985 discloses that advantageously, both the inner and outer layers are kept as thin and lightweight as possible (whilst still performing their intended function), in order to avoid adding unnecessary bulk or weight to the bag (paragraph 42). Further, the overall thickness of the case is between 8mm and 50mm. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to minimize the thickness of the outer layer, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215. One of ordinary skill in the art would want to choose a thickness for the single srPP layer to be thin and lightweight whilst also providing strength to the other layers. Multiple layers can be joined together to create the final outer protective layer. Thus, it would be obvious for the single srPP layer to have a thickness between 0.6 and 1.4mm. Thus, claim 11 is rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jenna Johnson whose telephone number is (571)272-1472. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday, 10am - 4pm.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
jlj
September 29, 2026
/JENNA L JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
