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 Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a step structure” is recited in line 1, but claim 7 already recited “step structure” in line 8. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7-8 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the step structure" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 8 and 10-14 are rejected due to their dependency on the rejected claim 7.
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 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10-11, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myszkowski et al. (US 20210284084 A1) in view of Abe et al. (US 20220324389 A1) and Nara et al. (JP 2020132020 A).
Regarding claim 1, Myszkowski discloses a side lining (Myszkowski, Fig. 1) for a vehicle (Myszkowski, 10 in Fig. 1) and adapted to be mounted to a sidewall (Myszkowski, Fig. 1, rear left sidewall of the vehicle) of the vehicle, the side lining comprising: a step structure (Myszkowski, 34 in Fig. 1) defining a step surface (Myszkowski, Fig. 1, surface of 34) extending inside a compartment (Myszkowski, Fig. 1) of the vehicle, wherein the step surface is arranged proximate to a bottom end (Myszkowski, Fig. 1, proximate to the bottom end of side lining portions 38 and 40) of the side lining and defines a load surface (Myszkowski, Fig. 1, surface of 34 can support cargo from below) to support a cargo, wherein the step structure includes a first step structure defining a first step surface portion (Myszkowski, see annotated Fig. 1) of the step surface and arranged proximate to a first longitudinal end (Myszkowski, see annotated Fig. 1) of the side lining, and a second step structure defining a second step surface portion (Myszkowski, see annotated Fig. 1) of the step surface and arranged proximate to a rear end (Myszkowski, see annotated Fig. 1) of the vehicle and separated from the first step structure by a gap (Myszkowski, see annotated Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
511
818
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 Annotated Fig. 1 from Myszkowski
Myszkowski fails to disclose the step surface extends horizontally and the compartment is a passenger compartment.
Abe teaches the step surface extends horizontally (Abe, Fig. 9 and paragraph 42, stepped surface 3A is horizontal).
Abe is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle side lining for cargo area as Myszkowski.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the side lining as taught by Myszkowski to incorporate the teachings of Abe with a reasonable expectation of success and have the step surface extend horizontally. Doing so provides a level and stable surface for supporting items.
Nara teaches a passenger compartment (Nara, Fig. 1, compartment is provided with a passenger seat therefore making it a passenger compartment; obvious to have such seats in the vehicle of Myszkowski since Myszkowski already teaches a safety belt and an armrest with cupholder in Fig. 1).
Nara is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle side lining for cargo area as Myszkowski in view of Abe.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the side lining as taught by Myszkowski in view of Abe to incorporate the teachings of Nara with a reasonable expectation of success and have seats such that the compartment is a passenger compartment. Doing so provides seating and comfort to passengers of the vehicle and allows the vehicle to carry not only cargos but also people.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Myszkowski in view of Abe and Nara teaches the side lining of claim 1, wherein the side lining is configured to extend from a rear end of the vehicle towards a front end of the vehicle (Myszkowski, Fig. 1-2, extends from rear end near 26 towards front).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Myszkowski in view of Abe and Nara teaches the side lining of claim 1, wherein the first step surface portion aligns (Myszkowski, Fig. 1, they are aligned longitudinally) horizontally (after combination with Abe) with the second step surface portion.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Myszkowski in view of Abe and Nara teaches the side lining of claim 1, wherein the step structure includes a sidewall (Myszkowski, see annotated Fig. 1) extending vertically (Abe, 38D in Fig. 11 and paragraph 46; 3C also described as vertical in paragraph 46) towards the bottom end (Myszkowski, Fig. 1, extends downwardly) of the side lining from the step surface.
Abe is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle side lining for cargo area as Myszkowski.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the side lining as taught by Myszkowski to incorporate the teachings of Abe with a reasonable expectation of success and have the step structure sidewall extend vertically. Doing so provides a right angle structure that is easier to manufacture; and provides straight and perpendicular surfaces in the cargo area for easier cargo placement and organization.
Regarding claim 7, Myszkowski discloses a vehicle (Myszkowski, 10 in Fig. 1), comprising: a vehicle body (Myszkowski, Fig. 1) defining a compartment (Myszkowski, Fig. 1) and a cargo area (Myszkowski, Fig. 1, space 18 and space next to 38 available for cargo); and a side lining (Myszkowski, Fig. 1 and abstract) mounted on a sidewall (Myszkowski, Fig. 1, rear left sidewall of the vehicle) of the vehicle body and extending from a rear end of the vehicle towards a front end (Myszkowski, Fig. 1, extends from rear end of the vehicle towards the front) of the vehicle, the side lining defines a step surface (Myszkowski, Fig. 1, surface of 34) extending inside the compartment of the vehicle (Myszkowski, Fig. 1), wherein the step surface is arranged proximate to a bottom end (Myszkowski, Fig. 1, closer to the bottom end of side lining portions 38 and 40) of the side lining and defines a load surface (Myszkowski, Fig. 1, surface of 34 can support cargo from below) to support a cargo arranged inside the cargo area (Myszkowski, Fig. 1, since the step surface is in the cargo area where storage space 18 and the storage space next to 38 are located), wherein the step structure includes a first step structure defining a first step surface portion (Myszkowski, see annotated Fig. 1) of the step surface and arranged proximate to a first longitudinal end (Myszkowski, see annotated Fig. 1) of the side lining, and a second step structure defining a second step surface portion (Myszkowski, see annotated Fig. 1) of the step surface and arranged proximate to a rear end (Myszkowski, see annotated Fig. 1) of the vehicle and separated from the first step structure by a gap (Myszkowski, see annotated Fig. 1).
Myszkowski fails to disclose the step surface extends horizontally and the compartment is a passenger compartment.
Abe teaches the step surface extends horizontally (Abe, Fig. 9 and paragraph 42, stepped surface 3A is horizontal).
Abe is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle side lining for cargo area as Myszkowski.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the side lining as taught by Myszkowski to incorporate the teachings of Abe with a reasonable expectation of success and have the step surface extend horizontally. Doing so provides a level and stable surface for supporting items.
Nara teaches a passenger compartment (Nara, Fig. 1, compartment is provided with a passenger seat therefore making it a passenger compartment; obvious to have such seats in the vehicle of Myszkowski since Myszkowski already teaches a safety belt and an armrest with cupholder in Fig. 1).
Nara is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle side lining for cargo area as Myszkowski in view of Abe.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the side lining as taught by Myszkowski in view of Abe to incorporate the teachings of Nara with a reasonable expectation of success and have seats such that the compartment is a passenger compartment. Doing so provides seating and comfort to passengers of the vehicle and allows the vehicle to carry not only cargos but also people.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Myszkowski in view of Abe and Nara teaches the vehicle of claim 7, wherein the side lining includes a step structure (Myszkowski, 34 in Fig. 1) that defines the step surface of the side lining.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Myszkowski in view of Abe and Nara teaches the vehicle of claim 7, wherein the first step surface portion aligns (Myszkowski, Fig. 1, they are aligned longitudinally) horizontally (after combination with Abe) with the second step surface portion.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Myszkowski in view of Abe and Nara teaches the vehicle of claim 8, wherein the step structure includes a sidewall (Myszkowski, see annotated Fig. 1) extending vertically (Abe, 38D in Fig. 11 and paragraph 46; 3C also described as vertical in paragraph 46) towards the bottom end (Myszkowski, Fig. 1, extends downwardly) of the side lining from the step surface.
Abe is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle side lining for cargo area as Myszkowski.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the side lining as taught by Myszkowski to incorporate the teachings of Abe with a reasonable expectation of success and have the step structure sidewall extend vertically. Doing so provides a right angle structure that is easier to manufacture; and provides straight and perpendicular surfaces in the cargo area for easier cargo placement and organization.
Regarding claim 15, Myszkowski discloses a side lining (Myszkowski, Fig. 1) for a vehicle (Myszkowski, 10 in Fig. 1) and adapted to be mounted to a sidewall (Myszkowski, Fig. 1, rear left sidewall of the vehicle) of the vehicle, the side lining comprising: a first step structure (Myszkowski, see annotated Fig. 1) defining a first step surface portion (Myszkowski, see annotated Fig. 1) surface extending inside a compartment (Myszkowski, Fig. 1) of the vehicle, wherein the first step surface portion is arranged proximate to a first longitudinal end (Myszkowski, see annotated Fig. 1) of the side lining, and a second step structure (Myszkowski, see annotated Fig. 1) defining a second step surface portion (Myszkowski, see annotated Fig. 1) extending inside the compartment (Myszkowski, Fig. 1) of the vehicle, wherein the second step surface portion is arranged proximate to a rear end (Myszkowski, see annotated Fig. 1) of the vehicle and is separated from the first step structure by a gap (Myszkowski, see annotated Fig. 1), wherein the first step surface portion and the second step surface portion are arranged proximate to a bottom end (Myszkowski, Fig. 1, proximate to the bottom end of side lining portions 38 and 40) of the side lining and together define a load surface (Myszkowski, Fig. 1, surface of 34 can support cargo from below) to support a cargo.
Myszkowski fails to disclose the step portion surfaces extend horizontally and the compartment is a passenger compartment.
Abe teaches the step surface portions extend horizontally (Abe, Fig. 9 and paragraph 42, stepped surface 3A is horizontal, therefore both its rear portion and front portion are all horizontal).
Abe is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle side lining for cargo area as Myszkowski.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the side lining as taught by Myszkowski to incorporate the teachings of Abe with a reasonable expectation of success and have the step portion surfaces extend horizontally. Doing so provides a level and stable surface for supporting items.
Nara teaches a passenger compartment (Nara, Fig. 1, compartment is provided with a passenger seat therefore making it a passenger compartment; obvious to have such seats in the vehicle of Myszkowski since Myszkowski already teaches a safety belt and an armrest with cupholder in Fig. 1).
Nara is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle side lining for cargo area as Myszkowski in view of Abe.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the side lining as taught by Myszkowski in view of Abe to incorporate the teachings of Nara with a reasonable expectation of success and have seats such that the compartment is a passenger compartment. Doing so provides seating and comfort to passengers of the vehicle and allows the vehicle to carry not only cargos but also people.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Myszkowski in view of Abe and Nara teaches the side lining of claim 15, wherein the side lining is configured to extend from the rear end of the vehicle towards a front end (Myszkowski, Fig. 1-2, extends from rear end near 26 towards front) of the vehicle along the sidewall (Myszkowski, Fig. 1, both extends in the front-rear direction of the vehicle) of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Myszkowski in view of Abe and Nara teaches the side lining of claim 15, wherein the first step surface portion aligns (Myszkowski, Fig. 1, they are aligned longitudinally) horizontally (after combination with Abe) with the second step surface portion.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Myszkowski in view of Abe and Nara teaches the side lining of claim 15, wherein each of the first step structure and the second structure includes a sidewall (Myszkowski, see annotated Fig. 1) extending vertically (Abe, 38D in Fig. 11 and paragraph 46; 3C also described as vertical in paragraph 46) towards the bottom end (Myszkowski, Fig. 1, extends downwardly) of the side lining from the first step surface portion and the second step surface portion, respectively.
Abe is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle side lining for cargo area as Myszkowski.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the side lining as taught by Myszkowski to incorporate the teachings of Abe with a reasonable expectation of success and have the step structure sidewalls extend vertically. Doing so provides a right angle structure that is easier to manufacture; and provides straight and perpendicular surfaces in the cargo area for easier cargo placement and organization.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Myszkowski in view of Abe and Nara as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Whalen (US 8534736 B1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Myszkowski in view of Abe and Nara teaches the side lining of claim 1, wherein the vehicle includes one or more seats (Nara, Fig. 3, two seats 6) adapted to be arranged in an upright position (Nara, Fig. 3).
The combination of Myszkowski in view of Abe and Nara fails to teach a folded position, wherein the step surface is adapted to be arranged at a vertical gap from a surface of the one or more seats arranged in the folded position.
Whalen teaches a folded position (Whalen, Fig. 4), wherein the step surface is adapted to be arranged at a vertical gap from a surface (Whalen, Fig. 4, folded seat 44 have surfaces below step surface 54 therefore having a vertical gap in between; such surface can be the seat base/cushion’s upper and lower surfaces and the bottom surface of the backrest) of the one or more seats arranged in the folded position.
Whalen is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle side lining for cargo area as Myszkowski in view of Abe and Nara.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the side lining as taught by Myszkowski in view of Abe and Nara to incorporate the teachings of Whalen with a reasonable expectation of success and have a folded position such that there is a vertical gap. Doing so provides increased cargo area when needed.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Myszkowski in view of Abe and Nara as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Whalen (US 8534736 B1).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Myszkowski in view of Abe and Nara teaches the vehicle of claim 7 further including a plurality of seats (Nara, Fig. 3, two seats 6) arranged inside the passenger compartment and disposed in a plurality of rows (Nara, second paragraph under section <<Vehicle>> in page 2 of machine translation; three rows) including a rear row (Nara, Fig. 3), wherein one or more seats of the rear row is in an upright position (Nara, Fig. 3).
Nara is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle side lining for cargo area as Myszkowski in view of Abe.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the side lining as taught by Myszkowski in view of Abe to incorporate the teachings of Nara with a reasonable expectation of success and have three rows. Doing so provides additional seating for passengers therefore increase vehicle functionality.
The combination of Myszkowski in view of Abe and Nara fails to teach move between the upright position and a folded position.
Whalen teaches move between the upright position and a folded position (Whalen, Col. 5 lines 30-31, seatback can fold down).
Whalen is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle side lining for cargo area as Myszkowski in view of Abe and Nara.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the side lining as taught by Myszkowski in view of Abe and Nara to incorporate the teachings of Whalen with a reasonable expectation of success and have the seatback foldable such that the seat can move between two positions. Doing so provides increased cargo area when needed.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Myszkowski in view of Abe, Nara, and Whalen teaches the vehicle of claim 12, wherein the plurality of rows includes three rows (Nara, second paragraph under section <<Vehicle>> in page 2 of machine translation; three rows) and the one or more seats of the rear row separates the passenger compartment from the cargo area (Nara, Fig. 3) when arranged in the upright position, and the one or more seats of the rear row is moved to the folded position to extend the cargo area (Whalen, Fig. 4) of the vehicle to accommodate a relatively large cargo.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Myszkowski in view of Abe, Nara, and Whalen teaches the vehicle of claim 12, wherein the step surface is arranged at a vertical gap from a surface (Whalen, Fig. 4, folded seat 44 have surfaces below step surface 54 therefore having a vertical gap in between; such surface can be the seat base/cushion’s upper and lower surfaces and the bottom surface of the backrest) of the one or more seats arranged in the folded position.
Whalen is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle side lining for cargo area as Myszkowski in view of Abe and Nara.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the side lining as taught by Myszkowski in view of Abe and Nara to incorporate the teachings of Whalen with a reasonable expectation of success and have a folded position such that there is a vertical gap. Doing so provides increased cargo area when needed.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Myszkowski in view of Abe and Nara as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Whalen (US 8534736 B1).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Myszkowski in view of Abe and Nara teaches the side lining of claim 15, wherein the vehicle includes one or more seats (Nara, Fig. 3, two seats 6) disposed inside the passenger compartment and adapted to be arranged in an upright position (Nara, Fig. 3).
The combination of Myszkowski in view of Abe and Nara fails to teach a folded position, wherein the load surface is adapted to be arranged at a vertical gap from a surface of the one or more seats arranged in the folded position.
Whalen teaches a folded position (Whalen, Fig. 4), wherein the load surface is adapted to be arranged at a vertical gap from a surface (Whalen, Fig. 4, folded seat 44 have surfaces below step surface 54 therefore having a vertical gap in between; such surface can be the seat base/cushion’s upper and lower surfaces and the bottom surface of the backrest) of the one or more seats arranged in the folded position.
Whalen is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle side lining for cargo area as Myszkowski in view of Abe and Nara.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the side lining as taught by Myszkowski in view of Abe and Nara to incorporate the teachings of Whalen with a reasonable expectation of success and have a folded position such that there is a vertical gap. Doing so provides increased cargo area when needed.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Myszkowski in view of Abe, Nara, and Whalen teaches the side lining of claim 19, wherein the one or more seats are arranged in rear row (Nara, Fig. 3) of a plurality of rows (Nara, second paragraph under section <<Vehicle>> in page 2 of machine translation; three rows) of seats of the vehicle.
Nara is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle side lining for cargo area as Myszkowski in view of Abe.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the side lining as taught by Myszkowski in view of Abe to incorporate the teachings of Nara with a reasonable expectation of success and have three rows. Doing so provides additional seating for passengers therefore increase vehicle functionality.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the first paragraph on page 7 of Applicant’s Reply, Applicant argues that the gaps of Myszkowski are holes that do not separate surfaces of the single trim strip; and Myszkowski identifies these areas as tie-down hooks. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The holes in Myszkowski annotated as gaps in the annotated Fig. 1 above are still considered gaps under the broadest reasonable interpretation. The gaps/holes separate the surface in front of them from the surface behind them by the distance of the gaps/holes. Furthermore, previously cited reference Stanczak et al. (US 20150343953 A1) teaches stepped surfaces (72a, 72b, and 92b in Fig. 8) that are separated by gaps.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Wenwei Zhuo whose telephone number is (571)272-5564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. 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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571.270.5500. 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.
/W.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612