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”.
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.
Claim 1-2, 4, 14-15, 19, 21, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scaringe et al. (10974653) in view of the well known prior art and either of Douglass, Jr. (3068038) or Plentis et al. (6966593) and further in view of Dean (7086689).
Scaringe et al. disclose the claimed invention including a storage receptacle/housing (229) with hinged cover; and a gear door having a surface below the rear gate (as the storage receptacle is positioned below a vehicle floor of the vehicle.
PNG
media_image1.png
256
426
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
371
505
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The housing of Scaringe is disposed beneath a surface, configured to store at least one component; and the surface configured to move relative to the gear door to provide access to the housing in a hinged manner.
Scaringe et al. lack the housing and gear door provided for an SUV type vehicle at a location between a rear wheel and a rear gate thereof.
The examiner takes official notice that SUV type vehicles are well known in the art where the passenger cabin of the vehicle extends the entire length of the vehicle such that a position of the vehicle between a rear wheel and a rear gate thereof includes an internal portion which is a passenger cabin.
In addition, both Douglass, Jr. and Plentis et al. teach a gear door between a rear wheel and rear gate. In particular, Douglass, Jr. (below, left) provide a gear door (66) at a location between a rear wheel and a rear gate (FIG.3) of a vehicle while Plentis et al. (below, right) provides gear door (34) positioned between rear wheel (FIG.2) and tailgate.
PNG
media_image3.png
609
934
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
406
448
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
568
482
media_image5.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 a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the gear door and housing of Scaringe et al. for use in an SUV type vehicle of the well known prior art and at a position taught by either Douglass, Jr. or Plentis et al. as an obvious expedient in order to allow for storage behind a third row of seats.
Further, the disclosure anticipates alternatives at [0028] where the internal portion 225 is said to be a cabin, trunk, a storage area, or a storage compartment. Applicant has not disclosed that having the internal portion being a cabin instead of a trunk, storage area, or storage compartment solves any stated problem (in the original disclosure) or is for any particular purpose, and it appears that the alternatives would perform equally well. Changing the type of internal portion would not change the use of the device or produce an unexpected result.
Scaringe et al., as modified disclose the gear door movably coupled with an arm, the arm including a first end coupled with the vehicle and a second end movably coupled with the gear door; the first end having a first distance from a ground surface with the gear door in the open position, the second end to establish a second distance between the gear door and the ground surface with the gear door in the open position.
Scaringe et al. fail to disclose the second distance closer to the ground surface than the first distance with the gear door in the open position, a feature taught by Dean as seen in FIGS.2-3.
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 second distance of Scaringe et al. closer to the ground surface than the first distance as taught by Dean in order to allow for easier access of the gear door to shorter users.
For claim 19, Scaringe et al., as modified, inherently disclose the recited method.
For claims 2 and 15, a locking mechanism (643) is configured to lock the gear door in the closed position; and
the arm (638,648) configured to prevent the gear door from making contact with an external portion of the vehicle with the gear door in the open position.
For claims 4 and 26, a portion (638) of the apparatus rests on a structure of the vehicle to define the open position of the gear door (see for example FIG.6 where a portion of 638 is provided on the vehicle when the door is opened).
For claim 21, the surface of the gear door is parallel with a ground surface when the gear door is in the open position.
For claims 22-24, at least one of the first end of the arm or the second end of the arm having a curved section (Scaringe et al., FIG.6); and the curved section to define a range of motion for the gear door.
Claims 3, 16, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scaringe et al. in view of Neag et al. (6129401).
Scaringe et al., as modified, lack the recited handle.
Neag et al. teach a gear door including a handle (46) configured to actuate a locking mechanism from a first position to a second position;
the gear door configured to move, responsive to actuation of the locking mechanism from the first position to the second position, from the closed position to a third position away from the vehicle; and
the gear door configured to move, responsive to an external force (from a user), from the third position to the open position.
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 handle of Neag et al. to the gear door of Scaringe et al., as modified, in order to effect manual opening of the door when desired.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scaringe et al., as modified, and further in view of Papai et al. (5735565).
For claim 11, Scaringe et al., as modified, disclose he gear door includes a first orientation with the gear door in the open position; and a portion (side surface) of the vehicle includes a second orientation; wherein the first orientation and the second orientation are different.
Scaringe et al., as modified, lack the first orientation and the second orientation define an angle that is different than 90 degrees.
Papai et al. teach a door (102) which provides a plurality of surfaces (147) when in an opened position. The door is provided at a first orientation different from a second orientation of the vehicle where the first and second orientations define an angle different than 90 degrees.
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 gear door of Scaringe et al., as modified, as a stairway as taught by Papai et al. and having a different orientation not at a 90 degree angle to the vehicle as an obvious expedient and in order to allow for surfaces at different heights.
Claim 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scaringe et al., as modified, and further in view of the well known prior art.
Scaringe et al. is silent on the specific data processing system recited.
The examiner takes official notice that processors of the type disclosed as well known in the prior art, specifically ones which allow for automatic locking and unlocking and ones which provide a visual or auditory alarm when a door (passenger doors or trunk) is not properly closed.
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 implemented such a well known processor of the prior art for use with the door of Scaringe et al. in order to allow for automated locking and unlocking thereof and further to provide an alarm to warn users when the door is not properly closed.
Because applicant’s traverse is not adequate, the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03(C).
Claims 9, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scaringe et al. as applied above in view of Greenwald (6231099).
For claims 9 and 18, Scaringe et al. lacks a partition configured to divide the internal portion of the vehicle, wherein the gear door and the partition form a cavity that is smaller than the internal portion of the vehicle; and the cavity configured to receive and store a component.
Greenwald teaches an internal portion having a dividing partition (34, FIG.1A).
PNG
media_image6.png
271
395
media_image6.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 a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the internal portion of Scaringe et al. with a partition as taught by Greenwald in order to allow organization when storing smaller items within the internal portion.
For claim 20, Scaringe et al., as modified, inherently disclose the method recited.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 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.
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 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, VIVEK KOPPIKAR can be reached on 571.272.5109. 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 3612B