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
Claims 1-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 reads “load floor assembly…” but should read -- A load floor assembly…--.
Claims 2-5 recites “Load floor assembly…” but should read -- The load floor assembly…--
Claim 6 recites “Trunk with a load floor assembly…” but should read -- A trunk with the load floor assembly of claim 1…--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3-4 and 6 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. claim 3 depend from claim 1 or 2; claim 4 depend from claims 1 to 3; and claim 6 depend from one of the preceding claims.
See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims 3-4 and 6 have not been further treated on the merits.
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 1-6 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.
Regarding claim 1: the final limitation of claim 1 recites “characterized in that the engagement surfaces are configured such that they are continuous”. Examiner is unclear as to what is required by the engagement surfaces are continuous. What is required for a surface to be continuous? For examination purposes, any surface will be a continuous surface.
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim 1.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warnecke (U.S. 2016/0229347A1), in view of Carlsson et al. (U.S. 2002/0070574A1).
Regarding claim 1, Warnecke discloses load floor assembly for a motor vehicle (para 0024: “boot of a motor vehicle”) with a rigid floor element (fig. 4) which comprises a covering surface for covering a trunk recess (para 0025: the cargo compartment of the vehicle) and bearing surfaces (the bearing surface will be the inner corners of the floor element that seats on a surface of the trunk; see annotated fig. 4 below for illustration),
wherein the floor element (fig. 4) comprises at least two floor sections (2, 3; fig. 4), wherein a first floor section (2) is connected to a second floor section (3) by means of hinge means (1, see figs. 4, 6, and refer to para 0028) such that it can pivot about a transverse axis of the motor vehicle (see figs. 7-8, also refer to para 0029), wherein end faces (ends of 2 and 3 which face each other at hinge connection 1. This is represented by end faces 4,5, shown in fig. 1 and para 0037-0038) of the floor sections (2, 3) which face one another comprise engagement surfaces (6, 11; see fig. 6 and refer to para 0030) that have a reduced cross-sectional height (as shown in fig. 6, tooth 6 and rounding 11 have a reduced cross-sectional height), such that the floor sections (2, 3) engage in one another while the cross-sectional height of the floor element remains unchanged (as shown in fig. 6),
wherein at least the first engagement surface (11) which, viewed in the vertical axis of the motor vehicle is arranged above the second engagement surface (6; as shown in fig. 6), comprises, in the end region, a rounded portion that faces the second engagement surface (6; as shown in fig. 5), characterized in that the engagement surfaces (6, 11) are configured such that they are continuous (see fig. 6 and refer to the 112b rejection above).
PNG
media_image1.png
304
563
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Warnecke is silent to the detail structure of the vehicle truck and trunk recess. Therefore, Warnecke is silent to the bearing surfaces are operatively connected to contact surfaces which at least partly enclose the trunk recess.
Carlsson et al. teach a vehicle trunk (1, fig. 1) comprising a floor/cover element (15), wherein the cover element comprises bearing surfaces that are operatively connected to contact surfaces which at least partly enclose the trunk recess (as shown in annotated fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
487
558
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Since Warnecke is silent to the detail structure of the vehicle truck and Carlsson et al. teach bearing surfaces on a trunk cover that operatively connect to contact surfaces of the trunk, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Warnecke to have the bearing surfaces operatively connected to contact surfaces which at least partly enclose the trunk recess, for the purpose of covering the trunk recess, as taught by Carlsson et al.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Warnecke and Carlsson et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Warnecke further discloses that the hinge means (1) are configured as a part of a textile upper layer (para 0029: “textile covering layer 13”) arranged on the floor element (as shown in fig. 6).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Warnecke and Carlsson et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Warnecke further discloses that the engagement surfaces (6, 11) are provided exclusively in the region of the covering surface of the floor element (as shown in figs. 4 and 6, the covering layer 13 spans from section 2 to 3).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Warnecke and Carlsson et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Warnecke further discloses that the rounding 11 provide the advantage of efficient opening by allowing a layer in contact with the rounding to roll along this rounding during an opening movement (refer to para 0030).
However, Warnecke, as modified by Carlsson et al. fail to teach that the second engagement surface comprises a rounded portion on the side facing away from the first engagement surface. The surface of Warnecke has a rectangular shape instead.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second engagement surface of Warnecke to have a rounded portion on the side facing away from the first engagement surface for the purpose of providing efficient opening by allowing the first engagement surface to roll along this rounding (refer to para 0030). Examiner also notes that a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey, 357 F. 2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA1966).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Warnecke and Carlsson et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Warnecke further discloses trunk (6; as modified by Carlsson et al.) with a load floor assembly according to one of the preceding claims (see the rejection of claim 1 over Warnecke), characterized in that contact surfaces are provided (see fig. 2 of Carlsson above), which enclose a trunk recess (see fig. 2 of Carlsson) and cooperate with corresponding bearing surfaces of the floor element (see the 103 rejection of claim 1 made above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 4, Preisler et al. (U.S. 2013/0278019A1) teach a vehicle panel comprising a top layer (16) and an underlayer (18).
However, Preisler et al., in combination with Warnecke and Carlsson et al. fail to teach that the second engagement surface rests on the underlayer of the first engagement surface.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fischer et al. (U.S. 2010/0187857A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YANICK A AKARAGWE whose telephone number is (469)295-9298. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7:30-5:30.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571) 272-5405. 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.
/YANICK A AKARAGWE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672