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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/05/2025 has been entered.
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.
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 1, 3, 5-6, 8-10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tiboni et al. (US 2020/0023781) in view of Ercolano et al. (US 2008/0001423).
Regarding claim 1, Tiboni teaches a vehicle which includes a panel defining a portion of an interior area in the vehicle and having a concave shape, and a reversible pocket configured to be attached to the panel in a stowed configuration in which the reversible pocket conforms to the shape of the panel and a deployed configuration in which the reversible pocket extends into the cargo area and defines a storage area together with the concave shape of the panel (“a cladding part, comprising: a contoured surface” & “covering on the contoured surface, wherein the covering forms a visible surface of a wall, wherein at least one wall portion of the covering is transferable into a folded-out position in which the wall portion forms at least one outer wall region of a receptacle, and the at least one wall portion is transferable into a folded-in position in which the cladding part does not have a receptacle.) (Paragraph [0004]; Figs. 1-2 provided below).
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Tiboni is silent with respect to the reversible pockets being formed from a textile.
Ercolano teaches a bistable opening/closing device for a storage compartment for door panels (Paragraphs [0001]-[0002]). The storage compartments have two stable positions, open and closed as illustrated in figure 4 (Paragraphs 0045]-[0046]; Fig. 4). The storage compartment outside wall may be formed from a flexible material, such as a fabric (Paragraph [0041]; Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the reversible pocket of Tiboni from the fabrics of Ercolano which is identified as a suitable material for a reversible pocket.
As discussed above, the pocket is able to transfer between a stowed configuration and a deployed configuration, which one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate as having a stiffener, being the pocket itself.
Furthermore, Ercolano teaches the storage compartments including a resilient strip which allows the transfer between the opening position and the closed position (Paragraphs [0041]-[0045]; Fig. 1-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to include a resilient strip in the reversible pockets of Tiboni in order to allow a user to transfer the pocket between the stowed and deployed configurations as taught by Ercolano.
Regarding claim 3, Tiboni teaches the reversible pockets as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the pocket is able to transfer between a stowed configuration and a deployed configuration (“wherein the at least one wall portion is flexible”).
Regarding claim 5, Tiboni teaches the reversible pockets as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the reversible pockets are formed from a fabric (“the textile covering is formed of a same textile throughout, including the wall portion”).
Regarding claim 6, Tiboni teaches the reversible pockets as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the pocket is able to transfer between a stowed configuration and a deployed configuration, which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as the pocket being intrinsically stiff.
Regarding claims 8-9, Tiboni teaches the reversible pockets as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Tiboni is silent with respect to the pockets being translucent when in the stowed configuration and non-translucent when in the deployed configuration.
However, these limitations appear to be properties which are dependent on the type of material for forming the pocket and the configurations of the pocket and one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that an identical structure would have identical properties. MPEP 2112.01: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433.
In the instant case, the wall portions are formed from a textile material and are transferable into a position which does have a receptacle and one which does not have a receptacle for use in a vehicle (Instant Specification, PGPUB, Paragraph [0003]).
Tiboni in view of Ercolano teaches each of these features as discussed above in use with a vehicle and, as such, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the pockets of Tiboni formed from the fabrics of Ercolano would be translucent when in the stowed configuration and non-translucent when in the deployed configuration, as required by claims 8-9.
Regarding claim 10, Tiboni teaches the reversible pockets as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the stowed configuration of the reversible pocket conforms to the shape of the panel.
Regarding claim 12, Tiboni teaches the reversible pockets as discussed above with respect to claim 11. As discussed above, both the pockets of Tiboni and Ercolano are pulled away from the contoured surface in order to allow access to the deployed and open configurations of the respective pockets and one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the opening of the pockets teaches a jump, or fold from a first position to a second position.
Regarding claim 13, Tiboni teaches the reversible pockets as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As illustrated in figure 3, the reversible pocket is a single layer of material identified by #106 (“wherein the textile covering is not supported by an underlying susbtrate”) (Paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claim 14, Tiboni teaches the reversible pockets as discussed above with respect to claim 1. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the textile pocket taught by the combination above would be considered a textile “base” as required by the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/cancellation of claim 4, see page 5, filed 12/05/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C 112 rejection of claim 4 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 09/30/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 5-7, applicant argues that the combination of Tiboni and Ercolano is improper such that the combination changes the principle operation of Tiboni. Specifically, Tiboni requires connectors which allow for the pocket to be reversibly connectable in the stowed or deployed configurations. As such, the inclusion of the resilient strip from Ercolano would make the connectors redundant.
The examiner is not persuaded by applicant’s arguments. The examiner notes that the connectors do not allow for the transition from the deployed to stowed configurations and vice-versa. Instead, they allow the reversible pocket to be connected to the panel which is then capable of changing configurations. This is very clearly stated in the paragraph cited by the applicant (paragraph [0025]) which indicates “In this manner, the pocket 106 may be securely connected to the panel 102 in either of the deployed or stowed configuration.” As such, the connectors do not change the configuration of the pocket.
The combination now relies on Ercolano which teaches the resilient strip allowing a transfer between a closed and open configuration (See rejection above). This strip is applicable to pockets of Tiboni in order to change the configuration from deployed to stowed as indicated in the rejection which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as teaching a pocket attached to a panel via the connectors and then may be opened and closed by the strip taught by Ercolano.
Therefore, the examiner contends that the combination does not change the principle operation of Tiboni, but provides a means to change the configuration of the pocket once attached to the panel.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P DILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8 AM to 5 PM.
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, MARIA V EWALD can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/DANIEL P DILLON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783