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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) and (a) (2) as being anticipated by CN106809263 by Li (Here forth “Li”).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a ride-on luggage (Fig A of Li), comprising: a luggage container including an interior cavity configured to store items therein and having a form factor configured to be used as carry-on luggage (Fig A of Li, the travel box portion is the container that can store items therein the interior; depending on size of the apparatus, it can be carry-on luggage);
a plurality of wheels coupled to the luggage container to enable wheeled travel of the luggage container (Fig A of Li, there are a plurality of wheels);
a seat provided on or integrated with the luggage container to enable a user to ride on the luggage container and configured to support the user in a respective seated position (Fig A of Li, the top portion of the travel box forms a seat that can enable a user to ride on the container);
a first at least one pair of footrests provided on or integrated with the luggage container to enable a user to rest the user's feet thereon when seated on the seat (Fig A of Li); and
a handle coupled to the luggage container and configured to be used in at least a pull operation (Fig A of Li, handle can be used in a pull operation).
PNG
media_image1.png
656
770
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig A- Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Li
Regarding claim 2, Li further discloses wherein the ride-on luggage includes at least two pairs of footrests, including a first pair of footrests and a second pair of footrests, which are offset from each other (Page 6 Para 8 of Li, there are two pairs of footrests offset to their pairs by the width of the container), and
wherein the luggage container includes:
a top surface including the seat (Fig A, the top surface includes the seat);
a first side including one of the first pair of footrests and one of the second pair of footrests (Page 6 Para 8 of Li and Fig A of Li); and
a second side including the other one of the first pair of footrests and the other one of the second pair of footrests (Page 6 Para 8 of Li and Fig A of Li).
Regarding claim 20, Li further discloses wherein each footrest of the at least one pair of footrests are configured to independently adjust between a retracted position and deployed position (Fig A of Li, the footrests are configured to independently adjust between a retracted and deployed position as they are foldable).
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 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of US Publication 2024/0180308 by Zwegers (Here forth “Zwegers”).
Regarding claim 3, Li does not expressly disclose the following Limitations:
Limitation A: the handle is adjustable between a stowed and deployed configuration
Zwegers discloses a similar ride-on luggage that teaches Limitation A, the handle is adjustable to move between a stowed configuration and a deployed configuration to enable the pull operation (Fig 1A and 2 of Zwegers, handle 30a-b is telescopic so it can be retracted into an envelope portion as seen in Fig B of Zwegers; Fig 1A and 2 of Zwegers, when the adjustable handle 30a-b is in the deployed position, the adjustable handle member 103 extends outwardly away from the luggage container to enable an operator to pull the ride-on luggage, and wherein, when the adjustable handle 103 is in the stowed position, the adjustable handle member is retained within an envelope seen associated with a maximum volume of carry-on luggage; Fig B of Zwegers, the stowed position, the adjustable handle is flush with a front face of the luggage container or recessed relative to the front face of the luggage container; Fig B and 2 of Zwegers, the adjustable handle is configured to rotate about an axis extending in a transverse direction; Fig B and 2 of Zwegers, the adjustable handle is configured to be moved to an intermediate position, the intermediate position being between the stowed position and the deployed position on a circumferential path of the adjustable handle, any position between the fully stowed position and fully extended position is the intermediate position).
PNG
media_image2.png
624
735
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig B- Examiner Annotated Fig 1A of Zwegers
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Li and Zwegers before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the ride-on luggage of Li to have the handle be adjustable such that the handle is adjustable between a stowed configuration and a deployed configuration to enable the pull operation, as taught by Zwegers, to advantageously secure the handle when not in use and pull it out when necessary so that it doesn’t unnecessarily occupy space when not needed.
Regarding claim 4, Li as modified includes all of the limitations including wherein, when the adjustable handle is in the deployed position, the adjustable handle member extends outwardly away from the luggage container to enable an operator to pull the ride-on luggage, and wherein, when the adjustable handle is in the stowed position, the adjustable handle member is retained within an envelope associated with a maximum volume of carry-on luggage (See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 3; Fig B of Jwegers).
Regarding claim 5, Li as modified includes all of the limitations including wherein when the adjustable handle is in the stowed position, the adjustable handle is flush with a front face of the luggage container or recessed relative to the front face of the luggage container (See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 3; Fig B of Jwegers).
Regarding claim 6, Li as modified includes all of the limitations including wherein the adjustable handle is configured to rotate about an axis extending in a transverse direction (See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 3; Figs 1A and 2 of Jwegers).
Regarding claim 7, Li as modified includes all of the limitations including wherein the adjustable handle is configured to be moved to an intermediate position, the intermediate position being between the stowed position and the deployed position on a circumferential path of the adjustable handle (See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 2; Fig 1A and 2 of Jwegers, any position between the fully stowed position and fully extended position is the intermediate position).
Regarding claim 8, Li as modified does not expressly disclose the following Limitations:
Limitation B: the adjustable handle is configured to maintain a position when force applied by the operator is absent
Jwegers further discloses a similar luggage that teaches Limitation B, wherein the adjustable handle is configured to maintain a position when force applied by the operator is absent (Para 28 of Jwegers, securement lever 94 allows the handle to maintain a position when force is applied).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Li and Zwegers before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the ride-on luggage of Li to have a securement liver to allow the handle to maintain a position when force applied by the operator is absent, as taught by Jwegers, to advantageously prevent the handle from extending or retracting when not intended.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Foreign Publication EP0709044 by Suzuki (Here forth “Suzuki”).
Regarding claim 9, Li as modified does not expressly disclose the following Limitations:
Limitation C: attachment ports
Limitation D: attachment port is positioned on a top surface of the luggage container
Suzuki discloses a similar bag that teaches Limitation C, further comprising an attachment port configured to receive an attachment insert (Fig 12-13 of Suzuki, there are two attachment ports 60 that are configured to receive an attachment insert 72; Fig 12 of Suzuki, the attachment port 60 includes a locking mechanism configured to releasably couple the attachment insert to 48 the ride-on luggage, the locking mechanism the buckle prongs of the attachment ports 60; Fig 12 of Suzuki, the locking mechanism comprises a spring-loaded latch, the outer prongs are spring loaded and lock within the openings of the attachment inserts 72; Fig 12-13 of Suzuki, a second attachment port 60 configured to receive a second attachment insert 54).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Li and Suzuki before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the ride-on luggage of Li to include attachment ports to be able to removably attach a strap to the luggage, as taught by Suzuki, to advantageously aiding in the lifting of the luggage/bag.
Li as modified discloses the claimed invention except for Limitation D, wherein the attachment port is positioned on a top surface of the luggage container. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the application was filed to have the attachment port is positioned on a top surface of the luggage container, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 10, Li as modified includes all of the limitations including wherein the attachment port includes a locking mechanism configured to releasably couple the attachment insert to the ride-on luggage (See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 9; Fig 12-13 of Suzuki).
Regarding claim 11, Li as modified includes all of the limitations including wherein the locking mechanism comprises a spring-loaded latch (See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 9; Fig 12 of Suzuki).
Regarding claim 12, Li as modified includes all of the limitations including further comprising a second attachment port configured to receive a second attachment insert, wherein the second attachment port is positioned on the top surface of the luggage container and opposed to the first attachment port (See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 9; Fig 12-13 of Suzuki).
Claims 13-14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of NPL: 2012: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8v-A7Tuc68 by SimplyHike (Here forth “SimplyHike”).
Regarding claim 13, Li further discloses a first handle [Not taught: strap] (Fig A of Li).
Li does not expressly disclose the following Limitations:
Limitation E: the first handle is a strap; second handle strap
SimplyHike discloses a similar luggage that teaches Limitation E, further comprising: a first handle strap; and a second handle strap (Timestamp 3:12s of SimplyHike, there are two strap handles positioned on the top surface; when taught to the modified Li, the handles are on the seat as the seat is on the top surface).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Li and SimplyHike before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the ride-on luggage of Li to have a first strap handle and second strap handle, as taught by SImplyHike, to advantageously aid in the carrying and lifting of the luggage.
Regarding claim 14, Li as modified includes all of the limitations including, wherein the first and second handle straps are positioned on the seat (See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 13; Timestamp 3:12 of SimplyHike).
Regarding claim 18, Li does not expressly disclose the following Limitations:
Limitation I: rear handling strap
SimplyHike discloses a similar ride-on luggage that teaches Limitation I, further comprising a handling strap on a rear face of the luggage container (Timestamp :59s of SimplyHike, a handling strap can be seen on the rear face).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Li as modified before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the ride-on luggage of the modified Li to include a rear facing handling strap, as taught by SimplyHike, to advantageously pull the luggage in an alternate direction or way.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li and Bossoo in view of Foreign Publication CN108903177 by Liu (Here forth “Liu”).
Regarding claim 15, Li as modified does not expressly disclose the following Limitations:
Limitation F: seatbelt; seatbelt is removably coupled to at least one of the first or second handle straps
Liu discloses a similar ride-on luggage that teaches Limitation F further comprising a seatbelt configured to removably couple to at least one of the first handle strap and the second handle strap (Fig 1 of Liu, seat belt strap 150; when taught to the modified Li, the seat belt is configured to removably couple to the first handle when placed on top on it on the top surface; the seatbelt configured to secure a passenger to the seat base of the luggage container).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Li as modified before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the ride-on luggage of the modified Li to include a seatbelt that is configured to couple to the first handle, as taught by Liu, to advantageously include a seatbelt that is long enough to help secure a passenger.
Regarding claim 16, Li as modified includes all of the limitations including further comprising a seatbelt configured to secure a passenger to the seat base of the luggage container (See the detailed description of claim 15; Fig 1 of Liu).
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Foreign Publication CN107499438 by Cao (Here forth “Cao”).
Regarding claim 17, Li as modified does not expressly disclose the following Limitations:
Limitation G: seat cushion
Cao discloses a similar ride-on luggage that teaches Limitation G, wherein the seat includes a padded cushion (Fig 4 of Cao, the seat can include a padded cushion 13).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Li as modified before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the ride-on luggage of the modified Li to include a cushion on the seat, as taught by Cao, to advantageously make it more comfortable for the user to sit on.
Regarding claim 19, Li as modified does not expressly disclose the following Limitations:
Limitation H: seat is vertically offset from the remaining surface area of the top surface
Cao disclose a similar ride-on luggage that teaches Limitation H, wherein the seat is vertically offset from remaining surface area of the top surface of the luggage container (Fig 4 of Cao, the seat can include a padded cushion 13 that is vertically offset from the remaining surface area of the top surface of the luggage container).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Li as modified before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the ride-on luggage of the modified Li to include a cushion on the seat that is vertically offset from remaining surface area of the top surface of the luggage container, as taught by Cao, to advantageously make it more comfortable for the user to sit on.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of US Publication 2015/0114777 by Edme (Here forth “Edme”).
Regarding claim 21, Li does not expressly disclose the following Limitations:
Limitation J: container comprises an outer magnetic material
Edme discloses a similar luggage that teaches Limitation J, wherein the luggage container comprises an outer magnetic material (Fig 1 of Edme, the container comprises an outer magnetic material 11).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Li as modified and Edme before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the ride-on luggage of the modified Li to include an outer magnetic material, as taught by Edme, to advantageously connect the luggage to other luggage to be able to move them together at the same time.
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Foreign Publication CN119184432 by Chen (Here forth “Chen”).
Regarding claim 22, Li does not expressly disclose the following limitations:
Limitation K: main access aperture
Chen discloses a similar ride-on luggage that teaches Limitation K, wherein a first side of the luggage container includes a main access aperture in communication with the interior cavity, wherein the main access aperture is configured to be selectively closed, and wherein the luggage container is configured to support a passenger when the main access aperture is in an open configuration (Page 36 Para 5 of Chen, the main access aperture can be accessed by opening the frame 2, frame 2 when opened allows access into the cavity to add clothing and can be closed when not in use, the door can be accessed while still supporting the passenger when frame 2 is in the open configuration; Auxiliary access aperture is accessed when opening frame 3, it can be selectively closed and clothes can be placed within; the first side contains frame 2 and second side contains frame 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Li before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the ride-on luggage of the modified Li to include a main access aperture and auxiliary access aperture, as taught by Zhang, to advantageously access items from either side of the luggage while seated on the luggage.
Regarding claim 23, Li as modified includes all of the limitations including wherein the luggage container further includes an auxiliary access aperture positioned on one of the first side and a second side of the luggage container, the auxiliary access aperture in communication with an auxiliary cavity, wherein the auxiliary access aperture is configured to be selectively closed, and wherein a volume of the auxiliary cavity is smaller than a volume of the interior cavity (See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 22, Page 36 Para 5 of Chen).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA KAVINI TAMIL whose telephone number is (571)272-6655. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-5:00pm.
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 at 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 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.
/JESSICA KAVINI TAMIL/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 9 January 2026