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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Comments
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 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.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element T should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species A in the telephone call of 5/23/25 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement in the response of 8/29/25, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 7-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The requirement is deemed proper and is hereby made FINAL.
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, US Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Onofrio et al. in view of Dykstra et al., or alternatively, Ryan, and further in view of JP 56057537 (JP 537).
For claim 1, D’Onofrio et al. (5931527) disclose a baggage loading device (FIG.12) for a vehicle, the baggage loading device comprising:
an auxiliary main body part (68) provided to be drawn out from a sidewall (14) of an interior of the vehicle and configured so that baggage can be selectively loaded when the auxiliary main body part is drawn out; and
PNG
media_image1.png
410
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a main body part (area below the auxiliary body part, FIG.12) adjacent to the sidewall of the interior of the vehicle (see also 67 in FIG.9);
the main body part being disposed to be spaced apart from a lower portion of the auxiliary main body part so that a loading area independent of the auxiliary main body part is configured so that baggage can be loaded in the loading area.
D’Onofrio et al. disclose the main body part including a loading area (generally the area beneath the auxiliary body part) but lacks the main body part having a plurality of divided loading areas or spaces.
Both Dykstra et al. (6874667) and Ryan (6682118) teach a body part including a loading area having a plurality of divided loading areas or spaces as seen for Dykstra et al. in FIGS.3-5 (below, left) or for Ryan in FIG.1 (below, right).
PNG
media_image2.png
566
642
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
277
339
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with reasonable expectation of success to have provided the main body part of D’Onofrio et al. with the additional structure and plurality of divided loading areas as taught by Dykstra et al. or Ryan in order to allow items in the location of the main body part to be more securely contained.
D’Onofrio et al., as modified, disclose the auxiliary main body part includes:
a case member (68) stored in the sidewall, the case member configured to move up or down and axially rotate along a guide bearing and to have baggage loaded thereon when in a deployed state (FIGS.11-12,19); and
a drawn-out member (71, FIG.11) that is drawn out by sliding from an inner side of the case member and extending from the case member.
For claim 4, D’Onofrio et al., as modified, is silent on the exact mechanism for operating the drawn-out member, including b sliding through a guide pin as recited.
JP 56057537 (JP 537) teaches the use of a sliding drawn-out member (10) sliding through a guide pin (22) (as seen in FIGS. 3 and 9).
PNG
media_image4.png
141
422
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with reasonable expectation of success to have provided the drawn-out member of D’Onofrio et al., as modified, with a guide pin as taught by JP 537 as an obvious expedient to sliding the member in relation to the case member.
The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR, 550 US at 82 USPQ2d at 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR) supports this rationale of a simple substitution.
Courts have recognized that it would have been obvious to substitute one known element for another that performs the same function, where the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See, e.g., Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 1344 (Fed. Circ. 2008) (concluding that the claims were obvious, noting that “[t]he asserted claims simply substitute a resistive electrical switch for the mechanical pressure switch").
D’Onofrio et al., as modified, discloses wherein the auxiliary main body part further includes a plurality of bending members (as part of netting 18,18a) provided on the case member and/or the drawn-out member and having an individually extendable length to be formed to surround loaded baggage on the auxiliary main body part.
D’Onofrio et al., as twice modified, fails to include with the auxiliary main body part further a fixing member coupled to the drawn-out member and inserted into a supporter provided on a vehicle body to face the sidewall.
JP 537 teaches this feature (as seen in FIG.2) where a fixing member (25) is coupled to the drawn-out member (10) and inserted into a supporter (groove 29 of side holder 27) provided on a vehicle body to face the sidewall.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the drawn-out member of D’Onofrio et al., as twice modified, with a fixing member as taught by JP 537 and to have provided D’Onofrio et al., as twice modified, with a corresponding supporter also taught by JP 537 in order to allow the auxiliary main body part additional rigidity when storing heavier baggage.
For claim 3, the auxiliary main body part is provided at at least one position (the position shown in FIG.12) among a plurality of different positions inside the vehicle constituting the sidewall.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) as amended have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies that the support is adjacent to and (i.e., “oriented toward the sidewall”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Applicant appears to argue a distinction between the functionality of the bending member and the net of D’Onofrio but the subject matter as recited provides for no distinction as argued.
Applicant goes on to argue that none of the teaching references disclose the auxiliary main body part further including a fixing member as recited. Examiner disagrees and notes that JP 537 teaches the features of a fixing member (25) and a drawn-out member (10) as set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HILARY L GUTMAN whose telephone number is 571.272.6662. 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, PAUL DICKSON can be reached on 571.272.7742. 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 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. Should you have questions, 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.
/HILARY L GUTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614