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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means,” and are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Mechanical fastening means in claim 14;
Mechanical fastening means in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Mechanical fastening means in claim 15;
Mechanical fastening means in claim 24.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 21 and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the projection" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 23, the claim recites “fittings are provided on each edge of each parallelepiped frame”. It is unclear what the fittings are as they are not mentioned anywhere in the specification or drawing. For purposes of examination, the examiner is interpreting the fittings to be any pieces that fit into the frame.
Claims 23-26 are rejected due to their dependencies.
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.
Claims 14-26 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 14 recites the limitation "the absence" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites “in particular at right angles”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language.
Regarding claims 23-26, the claims recite “a method for manufacturing a trunk system according to claim 14” in the preamble. It is unclear if the claims require the entirely of the structure of the trunk system of claim 14 or only method step that could be used to make the trunk system of claim 14. For purposes of examination, the examiner is interpreting the preamble of the claims to require a method for manufacturing the specific trunk system of claim 14.
Claims 15-22 are rejected due to their dependencies.
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 14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foreign Publication DE20208648U1 of Hamann (Here forth “Hamann”) in view of US Patent 6913386 issued to Maher (Here forth “Maher”).
Regarding claim 14, Hamann discloses a trunk system comprising:
a barrel (1) and an opening lid (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Hamann), the barrel (1) and the opening lid (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Hamann) each comprising a parallelepiped frame composed of a set of rigid panels (3,5), one rigid panel of which forming a bottom (3) and four rigid panels (5) forming side walls (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Hamann),
each parallelepiped frame having an opening (11) defined by the absence of a rigid panel facing the bottom (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Hamann),
the side walls being parallel in pairs and being orthogonal when they are adjacent (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Hamann),
the rigid panels (5) being engaged in grooves (61) provided in angle pieces (57) (Fig 6 and 7 of Hamann, edge rail 57 groove 61 engages side wall 5a), the angle pieces (57) being assembled by means of assembly members (25a) (Fig 7 of Hamann, corner cap 25a),
each assembly member (Corner cap 25a) having three feet (34a, 52), each foot comprising a fastening member (Fig 6-7 of Hamann, connection pins 52 and 34a have fastening portion that attaches to edge rail 57) engaging with a complementary fastening member belonging to each angle piece end (Fig 7 of Hamann, connection pins 53 and 34a fits into fastening portion of edge rail 57), so as to fasten three angle pieces to an assembly member in order to form a right-angled vertex of the corresponding parallelepiped frame (Fig 7 of Hamann, Corner cap 25a forms right angle),
the angle pieces defining edges of the parallelepiped frame of the barrel or of the opening lid (Fig 6 and 7 of Hamann, edge rail 57 groove 61 engages side wall 5a of barrel),
the opening of the parallelepiped frame of the barrel being intended to be closed by the opening lid pivotably mounted on the barrel, the openings of the barrel and of the opening lid facing each other (Examiner annotated Fig 1 of Hamann),
at least one edge of the parallelepiped frame of the barrel (1) and/or of the opening lid being covered from the outside by at least one respective socket (15a) assembled (Fig 6 and 7 of Hamann, edge rail 15a) by means of mechanical fastening means (friction of 15a attaches edge rail 15 to barrel) to the rigid panels on both sides of the angle piece corresponding to the edge (Fig 1 and 6 of Hamann, the edge rail 15 is on both sides of edge rails 57).
the mechanical fastening means being configured to connect the at least one socket (15a) to the rigid panels on both sides of the angle piece (Fig 1 and 6 of Hamann, an edge rail 15 is on both of edge rails 57 on every corner of the barrel) [Not taught: by passing through the rigid panels], and the mechanical fastening means not passing through the angle pieces or the assembly members (Fig 6 and 7 of Hamann, mechanical fastening means is friction of surface of outer and inner portion of edge rail 57 within groove against the side wall 5a),
the at least one socket (15a) ensuring a joint between adjacent and orthogonal rigid panels on both sides of the corresponding angle piece, and said rigid panels thus being engaged in the angle pieces without being fastened thereto (Fig 6 and 7 of Hamann).
PNG
media_image1.png
449
830
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Hamann
Hamann does not expressly disclose the mechanical fastening means being configured to connect the at least one socket to the rigid panels on both sides of the angle piece by passing through the rigid panels.
Maher discloses a similar sliding groove attachment mechanism that attaches to a panel that teaches the mechanical fastening means being configured to connect the at least one socket to the rigid panels on both sides of the angle piece by passing through the rigid panels (Column 5 lines 61-67 and Column 6 lines 1-11 of Maher, sliding mechanism similar to attachment of socket of Hamann can include screw to further secure two parts together).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Hamann and Maher before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the trunk of Hamann to have the fastening mechanism that attaches the socket to the rigid panels by passing through the panel be an attachment part like a screw or rivet, as taught by Maher, to advantageously add an additional layer of security to prevent the disconnection of the two parts.
Regarding claim 16, Hamann further discloses wherein the angle pieces (57) have grooves with an L-shaped cross-section (Fig 7 of Hamann, a portion of the groove and walls that form the groove 61 of angle piece 57 forms an L-shaped cross-section) and the rigid panels have a fold on at least one portion of the edges thereof, in particular at right angles, towards the interior of the corresponding parallelepiped frame (Fig 1 of Hamann), so as to form a peripheral edge having at least one portion with an L-shaped cross-section (Fig 1 of Hamann), the peripheral edges of the rigid panels being engaged in the grooves provided to conform with the angle pieces, so as to ensure the engagement of the rigid panels on the angle pieces (Fig 6 of Hamann).
Regarding claim 17, Hamann further discloses wherein the angle pieces are fastened to the assembly members by means of fastening screws (Fig 6-7 of Hamann, angle piece 57 can be fastened via rivet to assembly member 25a).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamann and Maher in view of US Publication 2021/0298437 by Fraiman (Here forth “Fraiman”).
Regarding claim 15, Hamann does not expressly disclose the mechanical fastening means comprise a stitching.
Fraiman disclose a similar luggage that teaches wherein the mechanical fastening means comprise a stitching, the stitching being made through the rigid panels on both sides of the angle piece and the stitching not passing through the angle pieces or the assembly members (Para 29 of Fraiman, stitching can be used to attach the perimetric side wall of the luggage).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mechanical fastening screws of the modified Hamman to be stitching. Such a modification only changes the fastener type which provides no change in function (see MPEP 2144.04 III). Further Applicant has not disclosed criticality for the claimed fastener.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamann and Maher in view of US Publication 2002/0079359 by Bradford (Here forth “Bradford”).
Regarding claim 18, Hamann as modified does not expressly disclose a reinforcement frame.
Bradford discloses a similar trunk that teaches comprising a reinforcement frame (66+70) attached to the barrel at the opening of the parallelepiped frame of the barrel and/or of the parallelepiped frame of the opening lid (Fig 1A of Bradford, reinforcement frame is top rails 16 and corner pieces 70).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Hamann and Bradford before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the trunk of Hamann to include a reinforcement frame at the opening of the barrel, as taught by Bradford, to advantageously aid in protecting the opening edge of the trunk.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamann and Maher and Bradford in view of US Publication 2014/0166414 by Moore (Here forth “Moore”).
Regarding claim 19, Hamann as modified does not expressly disclose the reinforcement frame being made of carbon fiber.
Moore disclose a similar trunk that teaches the reinforcement frame being made of carbon fiber (Para 22 or Moore, luggage can be made of carbon fiber).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Hamann as modified and Moore before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the trunk of the modified Hamann to have the reinforcement frame be made of carbon fiber, as taught by Moore, to advantageously provide a strong reinforcement frame.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamann and Maher and Bradford, as applied in claim 18, further in view of Fraiman.
Regarding claim 20, Hamann as modified does not expressly disclose accessories such as handles attached to the reinforcement frame
Fraiman teaches wherein at least one accessory part from: one or more gripping handles, one or more locks, one or more hinges, an inner lining, one or more fasteners, one or more hasps, is attached to the reinforcement frame (Fig 2A of Fraiman Handle 31; When attached to the rigid panel of Hamann as modified, the handle is attached to the reinforcement frame as it is attached to the rigid panel).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Hamann as modified and Fraiman before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the trunk of the modified Hamann to include a handle attached to the reinforcement frame, as taught by Fraiman, to advantageously aid user in lifting the trunk.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamann and Maher and, as applied in claim 14, further in view of US Patent 0002319 by Fitzgibbon (Here forth “Fitzgibbon).
Regarding claim 21, Hamann does not expressly disclose a strap.
Fitzgibbon discloses a similar trunk that teaches comprising a strap encircling the parallelepiped frame of the barrel at a peripheral edge on the opening side, the strap projecting, the projection being configured to guide the opening lid during the closing thereof and to contribute to the rigidity between the barrel and the opening lid when the trunk system is in use (Page 2 of Fitzgibbon, Column 1, Para 4 and Column 2 Para 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Hamann as modified and Fitzgibbon before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the trunk of the modified Hamann to include a strap, as taught by Fitzgibbon, to advantageously ad rigidity and protect the hinges from external elements.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamann and Maher and, as applied in claim 14, further in view of US Patent 3814220 by Brody (Here forth “Brody”).
Regarding claim 22, Hamann does not expressly disclose removable corners.
Brody teaches a similar trunk that teaches comprising removable corners to protect the vertices of each parallelepiped frame (Fig 4 of Brody, removable corner angles 58).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Hamann as modified and Brody before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the trunk of the modified Hamann to include removable corners, as taught by Brody, to advantageously protect the corners from wear and tear.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23-26 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a and b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding claim 23, Foreign Publication DE20208648U1 of Hamann discloses a method for manufacturing a trunk system according to claim 14, whereby, for each parallelepiped frame:
rigid panels are cut (Fig 1 and Abstract of Hamann),
portions of the peripheral edge of the rigid panels are folded at right angles (Fig 1 and Abstract of Hamann), so as to form a peripheral edge of the rigid panels having at least one portion with an L-shaped cross-section (Fig 1 and Abstract of Hamann),
the peripheral edge of each rigid panel is engaged in grooves with an L-shaped cross- section provided on angle pieces, the angle pieces wherein the rigid panels are engaged are assembled on assembly members (25a) to form each parallelepiped frame (Fig 7 of Hamann, a portion of the groove and walls that form the groove 61 of angle piece 57 forms an L-shaped cross-section and it engages corner cap 25a),and then,
[Not taught: a fabric is provided on the outside of the rigid panels belonging to each parallelepiped frame],
fittings are provided on each edge of each parallelepiped frame (angle pieces 57 and corner cap 25a are considered fittings as stated in the 112a rejection above),
mechanical fastening means are implanted to fasten each socket to two adjacent rigid panels (Fig 6 and 7 of Hamann, angle pieces 57 attach rigid panels 3a and 5a), the mechanical fastening means being implanted on each side of the corresponding angle piece (Fig 6 of Hamann, corner caps 25a), [Not taught: the mechanical fastening means passing through the socket and the corresponding rigid panel by perforating them], and the mechanical fastening means not passing through the angle piece or any of the corresponding assembly members (Fig 6 of Hamann),
so as to form, on the one hand, the barrel and, on the other hand, the opening lid, the barrel and the opening lid are assembled (Fig 1 of Hamann), [Not taught: the opening lid being pivotably mounted on the barrel].
Hamann does not expressly disclose the lid being pivotably attached to the barrel.
US Publication 2017/0000232 by Scicluna teaches the opening lid being pivotably mounted on the barrel (Abstract of Sciluna).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Hamann and Scicluna before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the trunk of the modified Hamann to have the lid be pivotably mounted, as taught by Scicluna, to advantageously open and secure the space within while keeping the shells together.
Hamann as modified does not expressly disclose fabric on the outside of the rigid panels.
US Patent 1614061 issued to Elliott discloses a fabric is provided on the outside of the rigid panels belonging to each parallelepiped frame (Page 2, Column 1, Para 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Hamann as modified and Elliot before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the trunk of the modified Hamann to have fabric on the outside of the rigid panels, as taught by Elliot, to advantageously add a more cushiony surface for the user when using the luggage.
Hamann as modified does not expressly disclose the mechanical fastening means passing through the socket and the corresponding rigid panel by perforating them.
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 2142. 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 7 August 2026
Prosecution Insights