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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Fig. 5A, the two end connectors denoted “60” should be --50--. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: on page 6, line 10, “collapsed mode 18” should be --collapsed mode 16--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 21-22, 24, 30-32, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Loudenslager et al. (US 2013/0334081).
Regarding claims 21-22 and 24, Loudenslager discloses a travel cover, comprising:
a top cap (104) having a top cap central panel (138) extending (a) transversely from a top cap dextral side panel (122) to a top cap sinistral side panel (120) and defining a top cap width, and (b) longitudinally from a top cap back panel (112) and defining a top cap length, wherein:
the top cap dextral side panel (122) and the top cap sinistral side panel (120) extend a top cap depth distance from the top cap central panel (138; see e.g., Fig. 8); and
the top cap back panel (112) extends from the top cap sinistral side panel (120) to the top cap dextral side panel (122);
a bottom cap (102) having a bottom cap central panel (136) extending (a) transversely from a bottom cap dextral side panel to a bottom cap sinistral side panel (both side panels are denoted “124” in Figs. 2-4) and defining a bottom cap width, and (b) longitudinally from a bottom cap back panel (114) and defining a bottom cap length, wherein:
the bottom cap dextral side panel and the bottom cap sinistral side panel (124/124) extend a bottom cap depth distance from the bottom cap central panel (136); and the bottom cap back panel (114) extends from the bottom cap sinistral side panel to the bottom cap dextral side panel (124/124);
an elongated flexible enclosure (108) extending between and attached to the top cap (104) and the bottom cap (102), the elongated flexible enclosure being openable and closable for receiving and retrieving contents;
wherein the travel cover has:
a vertical longitudinal plane (110);
a longitudinally expanded mode for carrying contents (see e.g., Fig. 1); and
a collapsed mode for folding portions of the elongated flexible enclosure into the top cap and the bottom cap to form a compact carrying case (see e.g., Fig. 4); and
wherein a rear side of the elongated flexible enclosure includes a backbone (200, see Figs., 7-10 showing the flexible folding top and bottom end plates 202, 204 that cooperates with the central panels 136, 138 to define a rear wall to the flexible enclosure) extending along the rear side of the elongated flexible enclosure and located between the top cap (104) and the bottom cap (102), the backbone (200) comprising at least one plate (200, generally, see Fig. 10) extending from a first side of the vertical longitudinal plane to a second side of the vertical longitudinal plane (see Fig. 10 showing the hinging plate 200 running the width of the case), with the at least one plate (end plates 202, 204; see Figs. 7 and 8 showing the change in angle between these two elements and the two caps 102/104 going from parallel to the central panels 136/138 in Figs. 8 and 10 to perpendicular - Fig. 7) configured to undergo a change in angular orientation relative to the top cap and the bottom cap during transition between the expanded mode and the collapsed mode.
Regarding claim 30, Loudenslager discloses that the top end plate (204) and the bottom end plate (202) are configured to limit folding rotation in the collapsed mode (e.g., the hinged connection shown in Fig. 7 is mechanically limited by the arrangement of these hinge plates 204/202) and to provide structural reinforcement to the elongated flexible enclosure in the expanded mode (see Fig. 8 and ¶0044 describing the interlocking of the two hinge plates 202/204).
Regarding claim 31, Loudenslager discloses a dextral buckle comprising a top cap dextral buckle portion attached to the top cap and a bottom cap dextral buckle portion attached to the bottom cap, wherein the top cap dextral buckle portion is configured to releasably engage the bottom cap dextral buckle portion; a sinistral buckle comprising a top cap sinistral buckle portion attached to the top cap and a bottom cap sinistral buckle portion attached to the bottom cap, wherein the top cap sinistral buckle portion is configured to releasably engage the bottom cap sinistral buckle portion (see e.g., Fig. 3 showing one side’s buckle portions 166 connectable together when the case is collapsed);
a pair of wheels (130) attached to the bottom cap (102);
at least one circumferential strap (e.g., middle above handles 146 in Fig. 1);
a pair of mid-tunnel carrying straps (146);
a longitudinal zipper (140) within the elongated flexible enclosure, passing between the pair of mid-tunnel carrying straps (146, see Fig. 1), and having a zipper length that is greater than a sum of a top cap length and a bottom cap length (see e.g., Fig. 9 showing the zipper 140 extending the entire height of the case while the top cap 104 and bottom cap 102 require the hinge 200 - see Fig. 10 to add up to the entire height of the case);
a handle (148) attached to the top cap (104);
a plurality of bumpers (134, see Fig. 10); and
wherein the top cap is a single-piece molded plastic component, and the bottom cap is a single-piece molded plastic component (see ¶0019).
Regarding claim 32, Loudenslager discloses that the top cap dextral buckle portion is attached to the top cap dextral side panel and the bottom cap dextral buckle portion is attached to the bottom cap dextral side panel, the top cap sinistral buckle portion is attached to the top cap sinistral side panel and the bottom cap sinistral buckle portion is attached to the bottom cap sinistral side panel (see ¶0037 describing how the straps are connected to the side panels via an interface 170), and the elongated flexible enclosure further including a reinforced foot portion (e.g., the reinforcement sheet/padding 126 - see ¶0026, as shown in Fig. 8, the reinforcement is adjacent the bottom end 114 of the bottom cap 102) adjacent the bottom cap.
Regarding claim 40, Loudenslager discloses a travel cover, comprising:
a top cap (104) ; a bottom cap (102) comprising a pair of wheels (130); and
an elongated flexible enclosure (108) extending between and attached to the top cap and the bottom cap;
wherein the travel cover is configurable between a longitudinally expanded mode (Fig. 8) for carrying contents and a collapsed mode forming a compact carrying case (Fig. 7);
wherein the elongated flexible enclosure (108) includes at least one structural component (e.g., backbone 200, see Fig. 10 showing the rear walls (136, 138 and hinge elements 200 cooperating to define a rear wall of the case’s enclosure) having sufficient rigidity to influence folding of the travel cover (e.g., the male and female ends 202, 204 cooperate to rigidify the case in the upright/expanded mode - see ¶0044), with the at least one structural component (200) positioned between the top cap and the bottom cap (see e.g., Figs. 7-10); wherein, during transition from the expanded mode to the collapsed mode, interaction between the at least one structural component (200) and at least one of the top cap or the bottom cap defines a collapsed configuration of the travel cover (see Fig. 7 showing the folding operation at 200); and
wherein one or more external retention members (172, 166 - see Fig. 7) are attached to the top cap and the bottom cap, and are configured to secure the travel cover in the collapsed configuration after the collapsed configuration is defined.
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 of this title, 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 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loudenslager et al. (US 2013/0334081) in view of Bettua et al. (9,345,298).
Regarding claim 23, Loudenslager, while disclosing that the hinged region (200) between the two plastic end caps (102, 104) forms a generally flat region that is perpendicular to the two caps when the case is collapsed (see Figs. 5 and 7), does not disclose that this hinged region forms at least part of a base of the case when in the collapsed mode.
Bettua teaches another collapsible case having a top cap (14) and a bottom cap (12) formed as rigid central panels (13/15), side panels (17/19) and back panels (see “top” surfaces in Fig. 1). The two central panels (13/15 are hinged together at a hinged bottom (16/20), wherein the bottom (16) forms at least a portion of a base when the cases is collapsed (see Figs. 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the travel cover of Loudenslager to use an enlarged hinged portion to allow for the case to sit upon hinge as taught by Bettua to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes a simple substitution of one known element (an enlarged flat hinge region for a collapsible case which is suitable to operate as a base/bottom) for another (a smaller flat hinge region for a collapsible case) to obtain predictable results (e.g., -------a bag that can be stowed/rested on different sides without tipping over for easier stowage).
Claims 25 and 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loudenslager et al. (US 2013/0334081) in view of McGuire et al. (11,388,965).
Regarding claim 25, Loudenslager, while disclosing that the hinged region (200) formed from hingedly connected end plates (202, 204), it does not disclose at least one interior plate between the two hinge plates attached to the top and bottom caps.
McGuire teaches another collapsible travel case including opposed top and bottom caps (50e, 50a) that are hingedly connected (at 42 in Figs. 7a-d) via at least one interior plates (e.g., plate 26 of portion 50c in Fig. 7a-d) between adjacent panels (in portions 50d, 50b).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the travel cover of Loudenslager to use an enlarged centrally hinged portion as taught by McGuire to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., ------- using multiple panels to form the collapsible hinge enlarged flat hinge region for a collapsible case) to known devices (e.g., collapsible elongated cases with central hinged portion) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., -------a case that can be collapsed in a more compact form by using smaller end caps and more central collapsible hinged panels).
Regarding claim 27, while the above Loudenslager/McGuire combination provides for a series of interconnected hinged panels of various sizes (see e.g., Figs. 1 and 7a-d of McGuire showing the differently sized sections of the case), it does not specifically provide for the interior panel to be longer than the two adjacent end panels.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to use differently sized collapsible panels, including a larger interior panel, since such a modification would involve a mere change in the size of a component and a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art -See In re Gardner v.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was 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 was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. The motivation for doing so would be configure the size of the expanded mode and/or collapsed mode of case to be a desired length.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 33-39 are allowed.
Claims 26 and 28-29 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not disclose or otherwise fairly suggest the recited abutting contact between the backbone plates to limit the rotation of the case.
Conclusion
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire reference(s) as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE CLEMMONS whose telephone number is (313)446-4842. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-4:30 EST Monday-Friday.
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, J Allen Shriver can be reached on 303-297-4337. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/STEVE CLEMMONS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights