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 § 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.
Claim 10 is 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 10 recites the limitation "the intersection" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 1-4, 7-9, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bourette (US 20150060221 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Bourette teaches a luggage case (10) comprising: a base portion (5 in Annotated Figure 11 below) comprising: an extendable tow handle (25); and a soft sided portion (15) coupled to the base portion (5 in Annotated Figure 11 below) and together defining an internal volume (Wherein Bourette teaches “The material used to increase and reduce the bag are one in the same. The fold or the inversion process utilizes the material from the larger bag thus eliminating the extra material and weight of additional material. When the invention is in its smaller position, the material that was used for the larger position is utilized to create the top flap of the bag as well as one of the inner storage pockets.”) of the luggage case (10), the soft sided portion (15) comprising: two or more straps (26, 27) positioned on a rear side (as seen in Figure 9) of the soft sided portion (15) in a spaced apart configuration (as seen in Figure 9), and wherein the soft sided (15) portion (wherein Bourette teaches “Alternatively, the expansion material of the bag can be rolled up firmly towards the upper portion of the bag wherein it can be secured tightly by an adjustable strap to keep it in tucked in position”) to an unrolled configuration (as seen in Figure 9) thereby varying the internal volume of the luggage case (as depicted in Figure 12); wherein at least one of the two or more straps (26, 29) selectively engages the extendable tow handle (25) when the extendable tow handle (25) is extended (as seen in Figure 9) to couple the soft sided portion (15) to the extendable tow handle (25) to selectively support the soft sided portion (15). (Figs. 8-12; [0034], [0036]-[0037, [0040])
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
28
32
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
29
23
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
28
26
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
851
344
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
22
177
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow]Regarding Claim 2, Bourette further teaches a roll top (wherein Bourette teaches “Alternatively, the expansion material of the bag can be rolled up firmly towards the upper portion of the bag wherein it can be secured tightly by an adjustable strap to keep it in tucked in position”) with an opening (23) for selectively accessing the internal volume of the luggage case (10), and wherein the opening (23) provides access to the internal volume in the unrolled configuration (as seen in Figure 10). (Figs. 8-12; [0035])
Regarding Claim 3, Bourette further teaches wherein the opening (23) defined by the roll top is positioned at a top (wherein it can be seen that the opening extends to the top of the soft sided portion 15) of the soft sided portion (15) in the unrolled configuration (as seen in Figure 10). (Figs. 8-12; [0035])
Regarding Claim 4, Bourette further teaches a closure assembly extending from the base portion (5 in Annotated Figure 11 below) to the soft sided portion (15), and wherein the internal volume is selectively accessible (wherein Bourette teaches “The inverted duffle extension material 15 now sits inside the bag as a storage pocket accessed by Zipping and unzipping 11, 11a but not exceeding point 17 of the zipper”) by the closure assembly (11) in the rolled configuration (as seen in Figures 10-12) and the unrolled configuration (as seen in Figures 8 and 12). (Fig. 9; [0036])
Regarding Claim 7, Bourette further teaches wherein the straps (22, 26, 27) define a second pull or carry handle (wherein the straps 22, 26 and 27 as taught by Bourette can function as carry handles). (Fig. 9; [0036], [0037])
Regarding Claim 8, wherein the base portion (5 in Annotated Figure 11 below) further comprises: a bottom portion, and a rear base portion (5 in Annotated Figure 11 below) extending from the bottom portion, wherein: the bottom portion and the rear base portion (5 in Annotated Figure 11 below) are coupled at an intersection, and the base portion (5 in Annotated Figure 11 below) is foldable about the intersection.
Regarding Claim 9, Bourette further teaches two or more wheel assemblies (6 in Annotated 11 above) coupled to the base portion (5 in Annotated Figure 11 below). (Fig. 11; [0032])
Regarding Claim 11, Bourette further teaches wherein either or both the bottom portion or the rear base portion (5 in Annotated Figure 11 below) are rigid or semi-rigid (Wherein Bourette teaches “it may be advantageous if at least the walls and bottom have enough rigidity to hold their own shape, but that need not be the case in all embodiments.”)
Regarding Claim 12, Bourette further teaches a front panel (15) is defined by the soft sided portion (15), and the closure assembly (11) extends around a periphery of the front panel (15) from the roll top (15) to adjacent the base portion (5 in Annotated Figure 11 below). (Figs. 8-10, 12)
Regarding Claim 13, Bourette further teaches wherein the closure assembly (11) is U-shaped (as seen in Figure 12) and includes a base extending across a portion of the width (W) of the luggage case, and the base of the closure assembly is positioned at or adjacent the base portion (5 in Annotated Figure 11 below) of the luggage case
Regarding Claim 14, Bourette further teaches wherein the base portion (34 in Annotated Figure 11 below) further comprises a tow handle pocket (34 in Annotated Figure 11 above), and the extendable tow handle (25) is received (not shown) in the tow handle pocket (7 in Annotated Figure 11 above). (Wherein Bourette teaches “Also provided that Zipper 34 basically serves as a storage pocket for sliding extendible handle 28 from which the handle can be extended out while carrying luggage Supported by wheels.”) (Figs. 8, 11; [0032])
Regarding Claim 15, Bourette further teaches at least a first capacity (Figure 9) of the internal volume is defined (increased) when at least two of the two or more straps (26, 27) are engaged with the extendable tow handle (25); at least a second capacity (Figure 12) of the internal volume is defined (reduced) when none or one of the two or more straps (26, 27) is engaged with the extendable tow handle (wherein a pocketed tow handle reduces the luggage of the bag); and the first capacity is greater than the second capacity (as portrayed in Figure 12).(Figs. 8-12)
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bourette (US 20150060221 A1), in view of Furneaux et al. (US 20180252458 A1), and further in view of design choice.
Regarding Claim 5, Bourette, teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 9 above except; further comprising: two or more roll engagement features positioned adjacent the opening to selectively close the opening in the rolled configuration.
Regarding the engagement feature, Furneaux et al. further teaches a roll engagement feature (52) positioned adjacent the opening (2) to selectively close the opening (2) in the rolled configuration (Figure 1). (Figure 1; [0037])
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 the suitcase as taught by Bourette, and substitute the rollable top for a roll-top with an engagement feature as taught by Furneaux et al. Wherein using simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; one would be motivated to substitute the rollable top for a roll top with an engagement feature, in order for the user to incrementally choose the expansion volume of the roll-top.
Regarding the plurality of engagement features, 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 Bourette, modified above, and by virtue of design choice provide for multiple engagement features. 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 multiple engagement features in order to further support the roll-top at a desired expansion volume.
Regarding Claim 6, Bourette, teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 5 above except; two or more loop features extending from a side of the soft sided portion to the base portion and engageable with the roll engagement features, and wherein the two or more roll engagement features are coupled to the loop features to maintain the luggage case in the rolled configuration.
Furneaux et al. further teaches a loop feature (54) extending from a side of the soft sided portion (10) to the base portion (wherein 54 extends towards the base portion) and engageable with the roll engagement feature (52), and wherein the roll engagement feature is coupled to the loop feature (54) to maintain the luggage case (100) in the rolled configuration (Figure 1). (Figure 1; [0037])
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 the suitcase as taught by Bourette, and substitute the rollable top for a roll-top with an engagement feature as taught by Furneaux et al. Wherein using simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; one would be motivated to substitute the rollable top for a roll top with an engagement feature, in order for the user to incrementally choose the expansion volume of the roll-top.
Regarding the plurality of engagement features, 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 Bourette, modified above, and by virtue of design choice provide for multiple loop features for roll engagement features. 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 multiple engagement features in order to further support the roll-top at a desired expansion volume.
Claim 10, so far as it is definite, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bourette (US 20150060221 A1), as applied to claim 9 above, in view of Meersschaert et al. (US 20140311848 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Bourette, teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 9 above except; wherein the two or more wheel assemblies comprise: a first portion coupled to the bottom portion, and a second portion coupled to the rear base portion, wherein the two or more wheel assemblies are foldable about the intersection.
Meersschaert et al. further teaches foldable luggage wherein two or more wheel assemblies (396) comprise: a first portion (400) coupled to the bottom portion (384), and a second portion (398) coupled to the rear base portion (386), wherein the two or more wheel assemblies (396) are foldable about the intersection (394). (Fig. 21A; [00185])
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 the suitcase as taught by Bourette, and substitute the rollable the wheels for foldable wheels as taught by Meersschaert et al. Wherein using simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; one would be motivated to substitute the wheels for foldable wheels, in order for the user to collapse the wheels and reduce space while stowing the luggage.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Yu (US 20190183219 A1), teaches a collapsible luggage system.
Tan (US 6401890 B1), teaches a collapsible wheeled luggage.
Deponte (US 20180177271 A1), teaches extensible luggage.
Plunkett (US 20220125171 A1), teaches luggage with an internal roll enclosure.
Stemp et al. (US 20190216190 A1), teaches a roll-top bag.
Furneaux et al. (US 20180252458 A1), taches extendable luggage.
Huang (US 20140097053 A1), teaches a foldable luggage bag.
Salander (US 7232018 B1), teaches a collapsible luggage system.
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 30 April 2026
Prosecution Insights