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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 and 16 each recites the limitation "[the right frame panel" and "tne left framre panel"" in lines 22-23and lines 13-14 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.It isn’t clear whether applicant intends to claim both retainer panels and frame panels or retainer panels which form frame panels. Thus independent claims 1 and 16 and their dependent claims are indefinite.
In claim 4 it isn’t clear if the wire frame goes around the periphery of both both of the retainerpanels together or each of the retainer panels.
In claims 8 and 14 it isn’t clear what applicant means by a retainer panel having a wire frame “mounted a frame panel”. It appears as though something was left out.
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) 1-3,16 and 18 insofar as they are understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shyr US 2015/0041272 A1 in view of Kaneko US 5,103,945.
Both Shyr and Kaneko teach collapsible luggage using removable retainer panels to provide support for luggage when they are deployed inside the luggage. Note that Shyr had side retainer panels 33 in pockets 35 (para 0049). Shyr also provides foldable end panels at the top and bottom. Although Shyr stores the removable retainer panels in an external pocket, kaneko teach placing removable retainer panels 10 in the rear. Regarding applicant’s claim for slots, this may be defined in the pocket of Shyr or as shown at 8 by Kaneko
Kaneko where seams come together,at the bottom on the luggage. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have stored the retainer panels inside the luggage leaving the outside pocket free for items needed during travel without opening the luggage.Regarding the pocket structure, note the pocket of Kaneko at 13 between the reinforcing layers or inserts and pocket front, Note also the suggestion by Shyr with double retainer inserts in the pocket forming an inner pocket for small items,
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [ the references ] as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of Wagoner US 2016/0331092 A1.
Note that Shyr teaches an extended handle 44 but teaches the use of xupport feet to support the luggage. However Wagoner teaches collapsible luggage using side retainer panels and extendable handle 26 and provides wheels 24 on each side. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have provided Shyr with wheels for ease of moving the luggage as taught by Wagoner.
Claim(s) 4,8 qnd 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim11 and 16 above, and further in view of Willets US 873,195.
Although the references do not teach a frame panels with a peripheral wire frame, the use of such to provide a flexible light weight panels is taught by Willets at 7. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have provided Shyr with wire frame panels for lighter panels with structure as taught by Willet.
Claim(s) 5,7,9,10 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the referencesas applied to claims 1,2,6,8 and 12 above and further in view of McKelvey et al US 2022/0167719 A1.
Although none of the refeences suggest adding a hanging rack to the luggage of Shyr, McKelvey et al teach such feature in luggage. McKelvey et al teach the inclusion in luggage at 5 and 26 in Figures 1 and 4. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have provided Shyr with such additional feature to provide a means to hang clothes when traveling.
Claim(s20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Day US 2009/0014267 A1 .
Although the references do not suggest the additional accessories
such as mirrors to the luggage, DAY teaches the addition of a mirror 112 (para 0019) to luggage for use where non is convenient. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have provided Shyr with a mirror for convenience as taught by Day.
Conclusion
r
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUE A WEAVER whose telephone number is (571)272-4548. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-10:30 AM EST.
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, Ph.D.,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.
/SUE A WEAVER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
