DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/08/2026 has been entered.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 4, filed July 8th, 2026, with respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been considered and are accepted.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-5, filed July 8th, 2026, with respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection are necessitated by Applicant’s amendments, the instant Office action has been made final.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the amendments and / or remarks filed on July 8th, 2026. Claims 1-33, 35, and 37-38 are cancelled. Claims 34, 36, 39-41 remain pending and are currently being examined.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 34, 36, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh et al. (US 20160366995 A1), in view of Erfinder (DE 102018101653 A1), and further in view of Chang (US 20190077193 A1).
Regarding Claim 34, Yeh et al. teaches a wheel assembly (105) for a stabilized luggage article (100), the stabilized luggage article (100) comprising having a bottom wall (3 in Annotated Figure 3 below), a top wall (4 in Annotated Figure 3 below), opposed first and second major faces (2 in Annotated Figure 3 below), and opposed first (5 in Annotated Figure 3 below) and second side walls (6 in Annotated Figure 3 below) that define a cavity for storage space (wherein Yeh et al. teaches in claim 1 “a main body comprised of first and second shells operably connected to form a storage cavity when closed”), the wheel assembly (105) configured to be mounted on the bottom wall (3 in Annotated Figure 3 below) proximate the first major face (1 in Annotated Figure 3 below) of the luggage article (100) and comprising: a pivot member (7 in Annotated Figure 3 below) configured to extend downwardly from the bottom wall (3 in Annotated Figure 3 below), the pivot member (7 in Annotated Figure 3 below) having a vertical axis of rotation (wherein Yeh et al. teaches “one or more of the wheels are designed to be able to spin about the vertical axis of the main body when the luggage is in an upright position thus making the luggage easily steerable in all directions”) that is projected toward but not beyond the first major face (1 in Annotated Figure 3 below) of the luggage article (100); one or more wheels (105) mounted to the pivot member (7 in Annotated Figure 3 below), the one or more wheels (105) rotatable (wherein the wheels roll) around a horizontal axis (H in Annotated Figure 3 below) and rotatable around the vertical axis (V in Annotated Figure 3 below), the horizontal axis (H in Annotated Figure 3 below) spaced laterally (lateral displacement indicated by L in Annotated Figure 3A below) from the vertical axis (V in Annotated Figure 3 below) of the pivot member (7 in Annotated Figure 3 below), wherein the pivot member (7 in Annotated Figure 3 below). (Figs. 1-3C; [0021], [0025])
Yeh does not teach the pivot member is a pivot post which is substantially perpendicular to the bottom wall and extends downwardly beyond the horizontal axis of wheel rotation; or a base and a shoulder plate forming a corner portion from which the pivot member and its vertical axis of rotation is projected toward but not beyond the first major face of the luggage article, the base perpendicular to the pivot member and configured for attachment to the bottom wall of the luggage article and the shoulder plate extending upwardly from the base and configured for attachment to a respective side wall.
Erfinder further teaches wherein, the pivot member (2) is a pivot post (2) which is substantially perpendicular (as seen in Figure 13) to the bottom wall (5) and extends downwardly beyond the horizontal axis of wheel rotation (as indicated in Annotated Figure 13 below). (Fig. 13; [0028])
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take suitcase as taught by Yeh et al., and provide for the pivot post extending beyond the horizontal axis as taught by Erfinder. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; one would be motivated to provide for a pivot post extending beyond the horizontal axis of wheel rotation, in order to enhance stability of the luggage.
Regarding the shoulder plate, Chang further teaches a base (11 in Annotated Figure 8 below) and a shoulder plate (10) forming a corner portion (as seen in Figure 9) from which the pivot member (30) and its vertical axis of rotation (aligned with pivot member 30) is projected toward but not beyond the first major face (sidewall of luggage 1) of the luggage article (1), the base (11 in Annotated Figure 8 below) perpendicular to the pivot member (30) and configured for attachment to the bottom wall (as seen in Figure 9) of the luggage article (1) and the shoulder plate (10) extending upwardly from the base (11 in Annotated Figure 8 below) and configured for attachment to a respective side wall (sidewall of luggage 1). (Figs. 1-10, [0018]-[0021])
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take suitcase as taught by Yeh et al., modified above, and provide for a corner plate with a base and perpendicular axis for a pivot post as taught by Chang. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; one would be motivated to provide for a pivot post extending perpendicular from the base of a shoulder plate, in order to further reinforce the luggage corners.
PNG
media_image1.png
258
312
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
23
182
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
23
172
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
528
612
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
23
187
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
377
413
media_image8.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image9.png
671
558
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
31
177
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
22
29
media_image11.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image12.png
521
472
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
50
173
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 36, Yeh et al., modified above, further teaches wherein the one or more wheels (105) are mounted orthogonally (as seen in Annotated Figure 3 above) to the pivot member (7 in Annotated Figure 3 above). (Figs. 1-3C; [0021], [0025])
Regarding Claim 39, Yeh et al., modified above, further teaches wherein the wheel assembly (105) comprises a stem portion (8 in Annotated Figure 3 above) that projects the pivot post (7 in Annotated Figure 3 above) toward the first major face (1 in Annotated Figure 3 above). (Figs. 1-3C; [0021], [0025])
Claims 40-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh et al. (US 20160366995 A1), in view of in view Erfinder (DE 102018101653 A1), further in view of Chang (US 20190077193 A1), further in view of Meersschaert et al. (US 20150130148 A1), and further in view of design choice.
Regarding Claim 40, Yeh et al., modified above, teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 33 above except; wherein the lateral spacing of the horizontal axis of wheel rotation and the vertical axis of the pivot post is between about 5 mm and about 30 mm.
Meersschaert et al. further teaches an offset (dimension X in Figure 4B) between a horizontal axis of wheel rotation (170’) and the vertical axis (168) of the pivot post (5 in Annotated Figure 5 below). (Wherein Meersschaert et al. teaches “The spinner wheel axis is positioned between the leading edge of the ledge structure and the offset position of the front edges 165, 169. The offset dimension X may be selected according the desired improvement in stability, and may include factors such as the general size of luggage case, the specific height, depth or width dimension…) (Figs. 4A-5; [0044]-[0045])
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take suitcase as taught by Yeh et al., and provide for an offset between the vertical rotational axis and wheel axis as taught by Meersschaert et al. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; one would be motivated to provide for an offset between the vertical rotational axis and wheel axis, in order to enhance the stability of the luggage. Yeh et al., modified above, remains silent regarding the lateral distance being from about 5mm to 30mm.
PNG
media_image14.png
538
380
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Although Yeh et al., modified above, does not specifically disclose this dimension. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a lateral distance between the vertical axis and horizontal axis of about 5mm and 30mm. Since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04 IV, A). In the instant case, the device of Yeh et al., modified above, would not operate differently with the claimed dimensional constraints, as this example would be suitable for demonstrating an offset between the vertical and horizontal rotational axes.
Regarding Claim 41, Yeh et al., modified above, teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 40 above except; wherein the distance is about 17 mm.
Wherein Yeh et al. teaches a lateral spacing (L in Annotated Figure 3A above) between the horizontal axis (H in Annotated Figure 3A above) of wheel rotation and the vertical axis (V in Annotated Figure 3A above) of the pivot post (7 in Annotated Figure 3 above). (Figs. 1-3C; [0025])
Yeh et al. does not explicitly teach the horizontal axis of wheel rotation is laterally spaced from the vertical axis of the pivot post by a distance of about 17 mm.
Meersschaert et al. further teaches an offset (dimension X in Figure 4B) between a horizontal axis of wheel rotation (170’) and the vertical axis (168) of the pivot post (5 in Annotated Figure 5 above). (Wherein Meersschaert et al. teaches “The spinner wheel axis is positioned between the leading edge of the ledge structure and the offset position of the front edges 165, 169. The offset dimension X may be selected according the desired improvement in stability, and may include factors such as the general size of luggage case, the specific height, depth or width dimension…) (Figs. 4A-5; [0044]-[0045])
Yeh et al., modified above, remain silent regarding the lateral distance being from about 17 mm.
Although Yeh et al., modified above, does not specifically disclose this dimension. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a lateral distance between the vertical axis and horizontal axis of about 17mm. Since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04 IV, A). In the instant case, the device of Yeh et al., modified above, would not operate differently with the claimed dimensional constraints, as this example would be suitable for demonstrating an offset between the vertical and horizontal rotational axes.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Wu (US 8020679 B2), teaches luggage with a shoulder plate for wheels.
Kuo (US 6134748 A), teaches luggage with shoulder plates.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN R CAUDILL whose telephone number is (303)297-4349. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30-5:30 MT.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JUSTIN CAUDILL/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 2 September 2026
Prosecution Insights