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.
Claim(s) 19-21, 24-25 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as being anticipated by Tonelli (US 2011/0132046), which in figures 1-13 disclose the following claimed invention:
In re claim 19: a locking case 4 including a base 8 and a lid 3, the case 4 comprising: a latch recess (recess defined by the two extending walls that 2 is positioned in) integrated into an outer profile of the case 4 wherein the latch recess is sized to accommodate a lock mechanism therein; and a latch 2/11 installed within the latch recess and including a latch handle 2 including a first end rotatably coupled 5 with the lid 3 of the case 4, and further including a second end 18 including an end protrusion 6 configured for removably engaging with a first portion 7 of the base 8 of the case 4 via 11, a passthrough feature (see figure 8, above 19) for accommodating the lock mechanism therethrough, and a button 11 including at least one hook mechanism 10 for engaging with a second portion 7 of the base 8 of the case 4, and wherein, when the lock mechanism is installed through the passthrough feature, the lock mechanism at least partly blocks access to the button 11 such that the button 11 is prevented from being depressed (depending on the shape and size of the lock mechanism) (see figures 1-13)
It should be noted that a lock mechanism is not positively being claimed.
In re claim 20: the button 11 is rotatably coupled 17 with the latch handle 2 such that the at least one hook mechanism 10 remains engaged with the second portion 7 of the base 8 of the case 4, independently from the second end 18 of the latch handle 2, unless the button 11 is depressed to disengage the at least one hook mechanism 10 from the second portion 7 of the base 8 of the case 4 (see figures 4 and 6)
In re claim 21: the at least one hook mechanism 10 of the button 11 remains engaged with the second portion 7 of the base 8 of the case 4 until the button 11 is depressed, even when the second end 18 of the latch handle 2 is disengaged from the first portion 7 of the base 8 of the case 4 (see figures 12 and 13).
In re claim 24: the lock mechanism is a padlock if included.
In re claim 25: the lid 3 of the case 4 includes a recess (recess positioned adjacent 5 wherein 2a is positioned when latch handle is fully opened) for capturing a tip 2a of the first end of the latch handle 2 when the second end 18 of the latch handle 2 is disengaged from the portion of the base 8 of the case 4 and rotated to an open position such that the latch handle 2 is retained in the open position by the recess (see figures 12 and 13).
In re claim 29: two or more slotted holes (holes which hinge pins 5 and 17 run through) for accommodating an elongated locking mechanism 5 or 17 therethrough (see figures 12 and 13).
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, 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.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tonelli (US 2011/0132046) in view of Henderson (US 8,944,476). Tonalli discloses the claimed invention as discussed above with the exception of the following claimed limitation that is taught by Henderson:
In re claim 26: Henderson teaches the provision of a gasket 30 positioned between the base 103 and the lid 102 of the case, wherein the first portion 301 of the base 103 of the case includes a shelf feature 301 for engaging with the second end of the latch handle 106, and wherein the shelf feature 301 is configured to transfer an engagement force from the latch handle 100 toward the lid 102 of the case when the second end of the latch handle 100 is engaged with the first portion 301 of the base 103 of the case, such that the gasket 300 becomes more compressed between the base 103 and the lid 102 than when the second end of the latch handle 100 is not engaged with the first portion 3 of the base 103 of the case (see 3A and 3B of Henderson).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the lid mating channel of Tonelli with a compressible gasket as taught by Henderson in order to provide an air-tight seal when the case is in a closed position (see 3A and 3B of Henderson).
Claim(s) 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tonelli (US 2011/0132046). Tonalli discloses the claimed invention as discussed above with the exception of the following claimed limitations:
In re claim 27: the latch handle includes a latch width greater than two inches.
In re claim 28: the latch width is greater than three inches.
Tonalli discloses the general conditions of the claimed invention except for the express disclosure of a latch width greater than two inches or three inches (Tonalli discloses a suitcase or trunk and the common latch width for suck containers fall in this range). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a latch width greater than two inches or three inches, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore in this case, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-23 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to the newly added claim limitation. The claim limitation only requires that a latch recess is sized to accommodate a lock mechanism. A lock mechanism is not positively being claimed and the structure of the prior art is capable of meeting the claimed intended use. See the Examiner’s annotated Figure 2 of Tonelli:
PNG
media_image1.png
441
834
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERNESTO A GRANO whose telephone number is (571)270-3927. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:30 EST.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571)272-4561. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERNESTO A GRANO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights