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 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stiegemeyer (DE 29502242 U1), with an English translation provided herein.
Regarding Claim 1, Stiegemeyer teaches a multifunctional case, comprising: a case body (2), and a case lid (1) configured to cover the case body (2), wherein: the case body (2 in Figure 1) is detachably connected (via locking mechanisms 6) to the case lid (1), an end surface of the case lid defines a panel (as seen at reference 1), a pair of foldable supporting frames (2 in Figure 2) are pivotally connected to the case lid (1), when the pair of foldable supporting frames (2 in Figure 2) are in an unfolded state (as seen in Figure 2), the pair of foldable supporting frames (2 in Figure 2) support the case lid to define a table (Figure 2), and when the pair of foldable supporting frames (2 in Figure 2) are in a folded state (Figure 1), the pair of foldable supporting frames (2 in Figure 2) are folded to be stored in the case lid (1). (Figs. 1-2; [0015]-[0016], [0019])
Regarding Claim 9, Stiegemeyer further teaches a-use of the multifunctional case according to claim 1; for a camping case (wherein Stiegemeyer teaches “the removed suitcase lid 1 becomes a camping table, in which the metal leg frames 2 mounted under the table are unfolded”) , a suitcase, or a packing case. (Figs. 1-2; [0019])
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stiegemeyer (DE 29502242 U1), in view of Gauss et al. (US 2020036068 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Stiegemeyer teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 1 above;
Stiegemeyer further teaches the pair of foldable supporting frames (2) are made of metal. (Wherein Stiegemeyer teaches “in which the metal leg frames 2 mounted under the table are unfolded.”) (Fig. 2; [0019])
Stiegemeyer does not teach that the legs are tubes.
Gauss et al. teaches support legs that are tubes (as seen in Figure 9). (Figs. 1-4, 6, 9, 11, 13-15; [0068])
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 case as taught by Stiegemeyer, and a and provide for metal legs formed as tubes as taught by Gauss 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 metal tubes for deployable legs, in order to provide for legs that displace support for the table on an uneven surface.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stiegemeyer (DE 29502242 U1), in view of Sudu (US 20120241270 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Stiegemeyer teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 1 above except; wherein: the case body comprises a pulling rod and two rollers, the pulling rod is fixedly connected to a rear surface of the case body, and the two rollers are rotatably connected to a rear of two sides of the case body.
Sudu further teaches a case body (10) comprising a pulling rod (52) and two rollers (46), the pulling rod (52) is fixedly connected to a rear surface (26) of the case body (10), and the two rollers (46) are rotatably connected (as seen in Figure 1) to a rear of two sides of the case body (10). (Wherein Sudu teaches “In a manner well-known in the art, bag 10 is provided with a pair of wheels 46 and a foot 48. Bag 10 also includes a pair of telescopic members 50 attached to a handle 52.) (Figs. 1-5; [0036])
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 case as taught by Stiegemeyer, and a and provide for rollers and a pulling rod as taught by Sudu. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; one would be motivated to provide a case with a detachable lid with rollers and a pulling rod, in order for the user to conveniently maneuver the case.
Regarding Claim 7, Stiegemeyer, modified above, teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 6 above except; wherein: the case body comprises one or more position-stopping protrusions disposed on a lower surface of the case body, and a height of the one or more position-stopping protrusions is equal to a height between a lowermost edge of the two rollers and the lower surface of the case body.
Sudu further wherein a case body (10) comprises one or more position-stopping protrusions (48) disposed on a lower surface (32) of the case body (10), and a height of the one or more position-stopping protrusions (48) is equal to a height between a lowermost edge of the two rollers (46) and the lower surface (32) of the case body (10). (Wherein it can be seen in Figure 2 that the feet 48 are the same distance to the ground as the roller 46.) (Figs. 1-5; [0036])
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 case as taught by Stiegemeyer, modified above, and a and provide position-stopping protrusions as taught by Sudu. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; one would be motivated to provide a case with position-stopping protrusions, in order for the case to remain stationary when not in use.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stiegemeyer (DE 29502242 U1), in view of Fang (CN 217497123 U), with an English translation provided herein.
Regarding Claim 8, Stiegemeyer teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 1 above except; wherein: two outer side walls of the case body opposite to each other are pivotally disposed with two buckles, and the case lid comprises two buckling grooves corresponding to positions of the two buckles and configured to be buckled to the two buckles.
Fang further teaches two outer side walls of the case body (1) opposite to each other are pivotally disposed with two buckles (wherein Fang teaches “Both sides of the box body 1 are installed with fasteners 11, the fasteners 11 are rotatably connected with the box body 1”), and the case lid (2) comprises two buckling grooves (20 in Annotated Figure 9 below) corresponding to positions of the two buckles (11) and configured to be buckled to the two buckles (11). (Figs. 1-3, 8-9; [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 the case as taught by Stiegemeyer, and provide for buckles as taught by Fang. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; one would be motivated to provide a case with pivotable buckles, in order for the user to have a convenient method of attaching or detaching the lid.
PNG
media_image1.png
316
385
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
27
30
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
22
162
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, and 10-12 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 2, Stiegemeyer (DE 29502242 U1), in view of Ye et al. (CN 218055075 U) is considered the most relevant prior art of record. Wherein the prior art of record teaches:
Wherein: the case lid comprises two lid sides opposite to each other, each of the two lid sides comprises two pivoting points.
The prior art of record does not teach;
Each of the two lid sides comprises two position-limiting protrusions disposed between the two pivoting points, pivoting ends of each foldable supporting frame of the pair of foldable supporting frames are bent to form position-limiting members which are arc-shaped or zigzag- shaped, distal ends of the position-limiting members are pivotally connected to the two pivoting points of the two lid sides, and the two position-limiting protrusions abut the position-limiting members when the pair of foldable supporting frames are unfolded, so that the pair of foldable supporting frames are inhibited from rotating outward.
Since the prior art of record does not teach position limiting protrusions placed within opposing lid sides to abut position-limiting members of the legs, 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.
Onlyfire (https://www.amazon.com/ONLYFIRE-Portable-Adjustable-Heavy-Duty-Tailgating/dp/B0CF2B7TSK?th=1), teaches a pivotable legs for a camp stove.
Hamre (US 3890952 A), teaches a portable camping stove with limit stopping protrusions on the face of the cover for the support legs.
Chubb (US 4049091 A), teaches an attache case with support legs.
Rosenquist (US 6041773 A), teaches a camp stove with folding legs.
Lee (US 45261658 A), teaches a portable barbecue system.
Chung (US 8960614 B2), teaches a foldable support assembly.
Levy (US 20040226791 A1), teaches a convertible laptop bag with leg supports.
Pham (US 20020063072 A1), teaches a computer case with support legs.
Selvi (US 20170071308 A1), teaches a case with a retractable handle, feet and wheels.
Plath (US 4995487 A), teaches a case with a retractable handle, feet and wheels.
Jackman (US 9849901 B1), teaches a case with a pull handle, feet and wheels.
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 16 January 2026