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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the slot on the door in claim 15 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0080895).
Re claim 10, Salter et al. discloses a method of installing an interior accessory within a vehicle comprising providing a secondary interior accessory, the interior accessory including a pouch (formed by 38 interacting with the door panel, as shown in figure 1), and at least one pre-formed accessory fastener opening (48, figure 3) and attaching the secondary interior accessory to the interior component of the vehicle by inserting at least one fastener (46, figure 3) through the at least one pre-formed accessory fastener opening and securing the at least one fastener in the at least one pre-formed interior fastener opening defined by interior component.
Salter et al. does not disclose removing at least one fastener that is removably secured to an interior component defining at least one pre-formed fastener opening, wherein the at least one fastener attaches an original accessory to the interior component, and using the same at least one fastener to attach the secondary vehicle accessory.
The examiner takes Official Notice that replacing old or damaged vehicle parts with identical vehicle parts and using the same fasteners to attach those parts is old and well known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a method, such as that disclosed by Salter et al., to include removing at least one fastener that is removably secured to an interior component defining at least one pre-formed fastener opening, wherein the at least one fastener attaches an original accessory to the interior component, and using the same at least one fastener to attach the secondary vehicle accessory, as is old and well known in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to repair a vehicle that has had its interior accessory damaged with a new part.
Re claim 12, Salter et al. discloses all the limitations of the claims, as applied above, except for removing an original interior accessory by said removing the at least one fastener, wherein said attaching the interior accessory replaces the original interior accessory.
The examiner takes Official Notice that removing fasteners from fastener openings for installed components in order to replace damaged components with new components is old and well known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a method of installing an interior accessory, such as that disclosed by Salter et al. above, to include removing an original interior accessory by said removing the at least one fastener, wherein said attaching the interior accessory replaces the original interior accessory, as is old and well known in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to replace a damaged interior accessory with an identical but undamaged interior accessory.
Re claim 13, Salter et al. further discloses the secondary interior accessory is a door panel accessory (as shown by figure 1, the accessory is attached to the door), wherein the secondary interior component is a door panel (as shown by figure 1, the interior component is a door panel) of the vehicle.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0080895) in view of King (US Patent 6,971,698).
Re claims 1 and 7, Salter et al. discloses a door for a vehicle comprising a door body (10, figure 2), an interior door panel (12, figure 2) defining at least one pre-formed panel fastener opening (48, figure 3) for an original installed door panel accessory (the fastener opening is capable of being used with an original installed door panel accessor and thus meets the claim limitation), a secondary door panel accessory including a pouch (formed by 38 interacting with the door panel as shown in figure 1, the device is capable of being a replacement device for originally installed device that has been damaged), and at least one pre-formed accessory fastener opening (44, figure 3); and at least one fastener (46, figure 3) extending through the pre-formed accessory fastener opening and into the preformed panel fastener opening to attach the door panel accessory to the interior door panel, wherein the at least one fastener is the same fastener used to secure the original door panel accessory to the interior door panel (the fastener is capable of being unfastened and refastened with a replacement door panel accessory and thus meets the claim limitation).
Salter et al. discloses all the limitations of the claim, as applied above, except for at least one tab extending outward relative to the pouch at least one tab extending from the backing panel, wherein the at least one tab defines the at least one pre-formed accessory fastener opening.
King teaches a backing including a backing panel (40, figure 2) and at least one tab (92, figure 2) extending from the backing panel, wherein the at least one tab defines at least one pre-formed accessory fastener opening.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify door, such as that disclosed by Salter et al., to have at least one tab extending from the backing panel, wherein the at least one tab defines the at least one pre-formed accessory fastener opening, as taught by King, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to add additional fastening points to the device to further secure it from movement.
Re claim 3, Salter et al. further discloses the door panel accessory (38) overlies a portion of the interior door panel (as shown by figure 1).
Re claim 4, Salter et al. and King disclose all the limitations of the claim, as applied above, except for the at least one fastener comprising at least one bolt.
The examiner takes Official Notice that bolts are old and well known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a door, such as that disclosed above, to have the at least one fastener comprise at least one bolt, as is old and well known in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to use fasteners that are easily obtainable and inexpensive.
Re claim 5, Salter et al. further discloses the pouch of the door panel accessory is at least partially formed from a flexible material (the net 38a is a resilient material, see paragraph 0045, line 6).
Re claim 8, Salter et al. further discloses the backing includes a backing panel, wherein the backing panel defines the at least one pre-formed accessory fastener opening.
PNG
media_image1.png
496
549
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0080895) in view of King (US Patent 6,971,698), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Nakashita et al. (US 7,401,842).
Re claim 2, Salter et al. discloses all the limitations of the claim, as applied above, except for the door body defining at least one pre-formed body fastener opening, wherein the at least one fastener extends through the preformed panel fastener opening and into the preformed body fastener opening to further attach the door panel to the door body.
Nakashita et al. teaches a door body defining at least one pre-formed body fastener opening, wherein at least one fastener extends through a preformed panel fastener opening and into a preformed body fastener opening to attach a door panel to a door body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective date of the claimed invention to modify a door, such as that disclosed by Salter et al., to have the door body define at least one pre-formed body fastener opening, wherein the at least one fastener extends through the preformed panel fastener opening and into the preformed body fastener opening to further attach the door panel to the door body, as taught by Nakashita et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to securely fasten the door panel to a structural member of the door.
Claims 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0080895) in view of King (US Patent 6,971,698), as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Schidan et al. (WIPO Publication 2004/087464).
Re claims 6, Salter et al. and King disclose all the limitations of the claims, as applied above, except for the pouch including a zipper for opening and closing the pouch.
Schidan et al. teaches using a zipper (5, figure 1) for opening and closing a pouch.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a door, such as that disclosed by Salter et al. in view of King above, to have a zipper for opening and closing the pouch, as taught by Schidan, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to secure objects from inadvertently coming out of the pouch during movement of the vehicle.
Claims 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0080895 in view of Levin et al. (French Patent Publication 3027002).
Re claim 14, Salter et al. discloses all the limitations of the claim, as applied above, except for the interior accessory being a center console accessory, wherein the interior component is a center console of the vehicle.
Levin et al. teaches an interior accessory (11, figure 1) being a center console accessory , wherein the interior component is a center console (3, figure 1) of the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify an interior accessory, such as that disclosed by Salter et al., to be a center console accessory, wherein the interior component is a center console of the vehicle, as taught by Levin et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order provide the pouch in a convenient area of the vehicle where a passenger can store objects and reach them while seated.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-20 are allowed.
The primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in claim is the inclusion in the claim of the limitations directed to a hook coupled to the pouch and configured to attach to a slot on a door of the vehicle to secure the interior accessory to the vehicle door. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claims, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. Salter et al., the closest prior art of record, does not disclose the hook and slot and there is no suggestion or motivation in the prior art of record to modify the device of Salter et al. to use such a mechanism absent impermissible hindsight reasoning.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1-6, 8, 10, 12, 13, and 14 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 Jason S Morrow whose telephone number is (571)272-6663. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m..
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 at (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 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.
/JASON S MORROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
June 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights