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 § 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 1-6 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roncato (US 20130306421 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Roncato teaches a luggage case (1) comprising: at least one shell (2) defining a rim (3); a zipper strip (13); an engagement structure (52) selectively coupling the zipper strip (13) and the at least one shell (2), the engagement structure (52) including: an integrally formed track (52) defining a gap (as seen in Figure 2), and a retention feature (9) selectively received in the gap (52 as seen in Figure 2) and extending from the gap (52) in a direction transverse to the track (52); and wherein: one of the at least one shell (2) or the zipper strip (13) includes the track (52); and another of the at least one shell (2) or the zipper strip (13) includes the retention feature (11). (Figs. 1-6; [0015]-[0016])
Regarding Claim 2, Roncato further teaches the retention feature (52) is integrally formed on a portion of the rim (3) of the at least one shell (2); and the track (52) is integrally formed on a portion of an edge (11) of the zipper strip (13). (Figs. 1-6; [0015]-[0016])
Regarding Claim 3, Roncato further teaches the track (52) is integrally formed on a portion of the rim (3) of the at least one shell (2); and the retention feature (9) is formed on a portion of an edge (11) of the zipper strip (6). (Figs. 1-6; [0015]-[0016])
Regarding Claim 4, Roncato further teaches wherein the track (52) comprises: a first flange (25 in Annotated Figure 2 below) extending from the at least one shell (2); and a second flange (26 in Annotated Figure 2 below) extending from the shell (2) and spaced apart from the first flange (25 in Annotated Figure 2 below) to form the gap (27 in Annotated Figure 2 below). (Figs. 1-6; [0015]-[0016])
PNG
media_image1.png
25
28
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
26
30
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
691
501
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
23
162
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, Roncato further teaches wherein the first flange (25 in Annotated Figure 2 above) and/or the second flange (26 in Annotated Figure 2 above) is continuous or discontinuous (as seen in Figure 1). (Figs. 1-6; [0016])
Regarding Claim 6, Roncato further teaches wherein the retention feature (52) comprises: a lobe (11) defined along a portion of an edge (9) of the zipper strip (6), the lobe (11) having a width dimension greater (as seen in Figure 2) than a width dimension of the gap (27 in Annotated Figure 2 above); a neck adjacent (28 in Annotated Figure 2 above) the lobe (11); and wherein the gap (27 in Annotated Figure 2 above) receives the neck (28 in Annotated Figure 2 above) with the lobe (11) engaging an inner surface (as seen in Figure 2) of the first flange (25 in Annotated Figure 2 above) or the second flange (26 in Annotated Figure 2 above) to retain the zipper strip (6) in the track (52). (Figs. 1-6; [0015]-[0016])
Regarding Claim 14, Roncato further teaches wherein the track (52) comprises: an access region (29 in Annotated Figure 1 below) to selectively insert (wherein Roncato teaches “Rigidity is fundamental because otherwise element 11 would not slide into raceway 52”) an end of the retention feature (11) of the zipper strip (6) to mount the zipper strip (6) to the respective shell (2). (Figs. 1-6; [0015]-[0016], [0018])
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image5.png
24
29
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
932
510
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
25
163
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 15, Roncato further teaches wherein the track (52) is continuous or discontinuous (as seen in Figure 1). (Figs. 1-3, 6; [0015]-[0016], [0018])
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.
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 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roncato (US 20130306421 A1), in view of McNichols (US 8016089 B1).
Regarding Claim 11, Roncato teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 1 above except; the at least one shell including a first shell and a second shell; and a hinge coupling the first shell and the second shell.
Wherein Roncato remains silent regarding a hinge or second shell.
McNichols further teaches at least one shell (10) including a first shell (20) and a second shell (50); and a hinge (30) coupling the first shell (20) and the second shell (50). (Figs. 2, 4; Col. 2, Lines 51-54; Col. 3, 32-35)
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 Roncato, and provide for a second shell coupled by a hinge as taught by McNichols. 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 second shell hingedly coupled to a first shell in order to provide for an enclosed clamshell suitcase.
Regarding Claim 12, Roncato, modified above, teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 11 above except; wherein the hinge includes at least two discrete hinges, at least one of said hinges attached to the first shell and the second shell and to respective ends of the zipper strip.
Wherein Roncato remains silent regarding a hinge or second shell.
McNichols further teaches wherein the hinge (30) includes at least two discrete hinges (30, 31), at least one of said hinges (30, 31) attached to the first shell (20) and the second shell (50) and to respective ends of a zipper strip (35). (Figs. 2, 4; Col. 2, Lines 51-54; Col. 3, 32-35)
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 Roncato, modified above, and provide for too discreet hinges as taught by McNichols. 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 first and second hinge for a suitcase, in order to provide the suitcase with a convenient means of rotating the connected shells about each other to access the suitcase cavity.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roncato (US 20130306421 A1), in view of Chan et al. (US 20060180487 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Roncato, modified above, teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 3 above except; wherein: an anchor couples at least one of the respective ends of the zipper strip to the at least one shell.
Chan et al. further teaches an anchor (30) coupling at least one respective end of a zipper strip (29) to at least one shell (10, 13). (Fig. 3A, 5; [0035], [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 Roncato, and provide for an anchor point for a zipper as taught by Chan 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 a first and second hinge for a suitcase, in order to provide the suitcase with a zipper anchor point in order to attach the zipper to the shell.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 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:
Regarding Claim 7, Roncato (US 20130306421 A1), is considered the most relevant prior art of record. The prior art of record does not teach:
Wherein: the retention feature further comprises: a rib extending along a portion of a length of the zipper strip spaced from the lobe, the neck defined between the rib and the lobe; and wherein the gap receives the neck.
Since the prior art of record does not teach a rib extend along a portion of the length of the zipper strip and spaced from the lobe, the prior art does not anticipate the claimed subject matter. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to a skilled artisan to have modified the prior art in order to arrive at the claimed invention without resorting to impermissible hindsight.
Regarding Claim 8, Roncato (US 20130306421 A1), is considered the most relevant prior art of record. The prior art of record does not teach:
Wherein the second flange is supported by at least one brace member extending from the at least one shell, the brace member defining a cutout to receive the lobe of the zipper strip.
Since the prior art of record does not teach a second flange extending from a brace member brace member extending from the shell, the prior art does not anticipate the claimed subject matter. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to a skilled artisan to have modified the prior art in order to arrive at the claimed invention without resorting to impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Sijmons (EP 2710916 A1), teaches an expandable zipper structure for luggage.
Jiang (TW 201320919 A), teaches luggage with an anti-theft zipper.
Slan (US 3286800 A), teaches a suitcase with multiple hinges.
Liao (US 20160157574 A1), teaches luggage with a replaceable zipper.
Wilk (US 5396685 A), teaches a zipper with an anchor.
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
/DON M ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733