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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 13, 15, 22-23, 31, 33, and 41-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20110175376 to Whitens et al.
Regarding claim 1, Whitens discloses:
A vehicle storage assembly (20) comprising: a static panel (22) having an opening (fig 2); a removal panel (24) proximate to the opening and configured to move between an open configuration (fig 5) and a closed configuration (fig 3), the removal panel covering at least a portion of the opening when in the closed configuration (fig 3); a ferromagnetic member (34) and one or more magnets (28) magnetically coupled to but spaced from the ferromagnetic member (28 and 34 are spaced next to each other) when the removal panel is in the closed configuration (fig 3/4); and a controller (52) configured to receive an input signal (via 38) and adjust a force of attraction between the static panel and the removal panel based at least in part on the input signal (paragraph 0021), wherein an air gap spacing (see A in figure produced below) between the static panel and the removal panel is selected (see figure below) to adjust a maximum of the force of attraction (air gap A is selected to allow a maximum force of attraction at the configuration of fig 4); and an electromagnetic coil (32) configured to be electrically energized creating a first polarity that increases the force of attraction between the static panel and the removal panel, wherein the electromagnetic coil is configured to be electrically energized creating a second polarity that decreases the force of attraction between the static panel and the removal panel, and wherein the first polarity is different than the second polarity (see paragraph 0021).
PNG
media_image1.png
319
489
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Whitens discloses:
The storage assembly of Claim 1, wherein the input signal is received from one or more of a display, a key fob (40), a collision sensor (42), and an ajar switch.
Regarding claim 3, Whitens discloses:
The storage assembly of Claim 1, wherein the static panel is a storage compartment configured as a glove box (fig 1).
Regarding claim 4, Whitens discloses:
The storage assembly of Claim 1, wherein the removal panel is a door (fig 1).
Regarding claim 13, Whitens discloses:
The storage assembly of Claim 1, wherein the one or more magnets are neodymium iron boron (NdFeB) (paragraph 0019, rare earth magnets are made of NdFeB), AlNiCo, ferrite, or SmCo magnets.
Regarding claim 15, Whitens discloses:
The storage assembly of Claim 1, wherein the electromagnetic coil is surrounding at least a portion of an outer perimeter of the one or more magnets (fig 4).
Regarding claim 22, Whitens discloses:
The storage assembly of Claim 1, wherein the ferromagnetic member and/or the one or more magnets are placed beneath a textile or fabric covering (fig 2).
Regarding claim 23, Whitens discloses:
The storage assembly of Claim 1, wherein the ferromagnetic member comprises steel (paragraph 0018).
Claim 31 is rejected as per the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 33 is rejected as per the rejection of claim 2 above.
Claim 41 is rejected as per the rejection of claim 13 above.
Regarding claim 42, Whitens discloses:
The storage assembly of Claim 31, further comprising a ferromagnetic enclosure (34) disposed around at least a portion of an outer perimeter of the one or more magnets (fig 4, 34 is disposed on the outer perimeter of 28), and wherein the ferromagnetic enclosure is a steel cup (34 is a steel cup).
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.
Claim(s) 7 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20110175376 to Whitens et al in view of US 20180075961 to Davis et al.
Regarding claim 7, Whitens does not explicitly disclose:
The storage assembly of Claim 1, wherein the electromagnetic coil comprises copper.
However, Davis teaches that it is well known in the art for an electromagnetic coil to comprise copper (paragraph 0005). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate copper as taught by Davis into the assembly of Whitens at least because doing so requires the simple substitution of one known feature for another and could be accomplished without undue experimentation and would yield the same result, providing an electromagnetic coil. See MPEP 2143, subsection I.B. (3).
Claim 38 is rejected as per the rejection of claim 7 above.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20110175376 to Whitens et al in view of US 8720968 to Zalan et al.
Regarding claim 10, Whitens does not explicitly disclose:
The storage assembly of Claim 1, further comprising a display configured to receive the input signal, the removal static panel moving to the open configuration in response at least in part to the input signal.
However, Zalan teaches that it is well known in the art for a display (905) to receive the input signal to open the static panel (see col 4 lines 11-16). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zalan into Whitens at least because doing so would provide convenience in opening the panel electronically.
Regarding claim 11, Whitens (in view of Zalan) discloses:
The storage assembly of Claim 10, wherein the input signal is a screen tap (903) on the display, and wherein the display is disposed remote from the ferromagnetic member and the one or more magnets (fig 10).
Claim(s) 18. 20-21, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20110175376 to Whitens et al.
Regarding claim 18, Whitens discloses:
The storage assembly of Claim 1, wherein the removal panel is a trim panel (fig 5),
Whitens does not explicitly disclose: and wherein the ferromagnetic member is disposed on the trim panel.
However, Whitens does disclose a ferromagnetic member on the static panel and the magnet on the removable panel. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the ferromagnetic member on the trim panel and the magnet on the static panel at least because doing so requires the simple substitution of one known feature for another and could be accomplished without undue experimentation and would yield the same result, providing a ferromagnetic member and a magnet. See MPEP 2143, subsection I.B. (3).
Regarding claim 20, Whitens discloses:
The storage assembly of Claim 18, wherein the ferromagnetic member on the trim panel is exposed/visible (when opened and exposed from the trim covering).
Regarding claim 21, Whitens discloses:
The storage assembly of Claim 18, wherein the ferromagnetic member on the trim panel is hidden inside a trim panel material (when opened and underneath the trim covering).
Regarding claim 24, Whitens discloses:
The storage assembly of Claim 18, further comprising a textile, fabric, foam pad, resin, gel, plastic overmold, or other covering material that restricts a minimum gap between the trim panel and the removal panel to ensure a repulsive force will be sufficient to unlatch delatch the two panels (figs 3-5, material that covers 24 near 28 and material of 12 near 30) and/or that aids in NVH improvement/impact sound reduction and/or serves as an aesthetic or visual surface.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s arguments that the prior art does not disclose an air gap spacing between the static panel and the removal panel that is adjusted to a maximum force of attraction, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The exact spacing of the air gap is selected to a maximum applied force of attraction. Examiner notes that the claims do not necessitate that the controller adjusts the air gap spacing. Additionally, Applicant’s arguments that the magnetic elements are not spaced, Examiner notes that 28 is spaced from 34 so that they are side by side. If Applicant desires to claim the magnetic elements are not in direct contact, such claim language must be added. Therefore, rejection is maintained
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yahya Sidky whose telephone number is (571)272-6237. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-4:30.
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, Christine Mills can be reached at (571) 272-8322. 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.
/Y.S./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675