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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: securing element in claim 9.
Paragraph 57 of the specification dated 3/13/2024 described the securing element as “securing strap or securing net.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 6-8 and 15 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 6 recites the limitation "the power-operated adjustment" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the plurality of storage segments." It is unclear if this is referring to the “at least one storage segment” from claim 1, or the “plurality of height-adjustable storage segments” from claim 14, or both, or does the at least one storage segment comprises the height-adjustable storage segments.
Claims 7-8 are rejected due to their dependency on the rejected claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Getta (US 20180244214 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Getta discloses a luggage compartment assembly (Fig. 1A) for a luggage compartment of a vehicle (abstract), comprising at least one storage segment (2 in Fig. 1C) with a storage surface (Fig. 1C, surface of 20) for the luggage compartment, which is adjustable (Fig. 1C-1D) relative to a base surface (Fig. 1D, surface of L) along an adjustment direction (Fig. 1C-1D, vertical direction) from a lowered position (Fig. 1C) into at least one extended position (Fig. 1D), wherein the luggage compartment assembly additionally comprises at least one wall (13 in Fig. 1B) adjustable along the adjustment direction (Fig. 1B, also moves vertically upward from a lower position of Fig. 1A), which laterally delimits (Fig. 1D and paragraph 0045, the walls are on left/right sides) a stowage space that is formed between the at least one storage segment present in the at least one extended position and a portion of the base surface (Fig. 1D, space between 20 and L).
Regarding claim 6, Getta discloses the luggage compartment assembly according to claim 1, wherein the luggage compartment assembly, for the power-operated adjustment (paragraph 40, motorized adjusting) of the at least one storage segment, includes at least one electronically controllable drive (paragraph 8, electromotive drive).
Regarding claim 7, Getta discloses the luggage compartment assembly according to claim 6, wherein the luggage compartment assembly is adapted to adjust the at least one storage segment via the at least one drive in response to an operating event (paragraph 27).
Regarding claim 8, Getta discloses the luggage compartment assembly according to claim 7, wherein the luggage compartment assembly is adapted to recognize at least one of the following events as an operating event:
- actuating a trigger device (paragraph 27, on-board electronic system or a key),
- detection of an object in a predetermined detection area, or
- recognizing a predetermined object in a predetermined recognition area.
Claims 1-3, 5, 12-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Faber et al. (US 6254162 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Faber discloses a luggage compartment assembly (110 in Fig. 6a) for a luggage compartment of a vehicle (Fig. 6a, rear compartment of vehicle 40), comprising at least one storage segment (185 in Fig. 6a) with a storage surface (Fig. 6d, 185 has a surface) for the luggage compartment, which is adjustable (Fig. 6c-6d) relative to a base surface (Fig. 6b, bottom surface of 225) along an adjustment direction (Fig. 6c-6d, vertical direction) from a lowered position (Fig. 6d) into at least one extended position (Fig. 6a), wherein the luggage compartment assembly additionally comprises at least one wall (see annotated Fig. 6b) adjustable along the adjustment direction (Fig. 6c-6d, also moves in vertical direction), which laterally (Fig. 6c, in vehicle lateral direction) delimits a stowage space (225 in Fig. 6b) that is formed between the at least one storage segment present in the at least one extended position and a portion of the base surface (Fig. 6b).
PNG
media_image1.png
341
515
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 Annotated Fig. 6b from Faber
Regarding claim 2, Faber discloses the luggage compartment assembly according to claim 1, wherein in the at least one extended position of the at least one storage segment the at least one wall is formed with a closed surface (see annotated Fig. 6b, the at least one wall is bottom wall which has no openings).
Regarding claim 3, Faber discloses the luggage compartment assembly according to claim 1, wherein the at least one wall is formed with a plurality of flat wall elements (see annotated Fig. 6b) shiftable against each other in pairs along the adjustment direction (Fig. 6b-6d).
Regarding claim 5, Faber discloses the luggage compartment assembly according to claim 1, wherein an adjustment of the at least one wall along the adjustment direction is coupled with an adjustment of the at least one storage segment along the adjustment direction (Fig. 6b-6d, walls and the storage segment are coupled together, adjusting one also adjusts the other).
Regarding claim 12, Faber discloses the luggage compartment assembly according to claim 1, wherein the at least one storage segment includes an opening (240 in Fig. 6a) in order to provide for access (Col. 7 lines 28-30, allows deployment of the stowage space thereby providing access to the stowage space; also, when deployed, the opening provides access to the stowage space underneath for items that fit through the opening) to the at least one stowage space of the at least one storage segment.
Regarding claim 13, Faber discloses the luggage compartment assembly according to claim 1, wherein the luggage compartment assembly includes a substantially flat base element (170 under the stowage space in Fig. 7C) connected to the at least one storage segment.
Regarding claim 14, Faber discloses the luggage compartment assembly according to claim 1, wherein the luggage compartment assembly includes a plurality of height-adjustable storage segments (190a and 190b in Fig. 6a-6b, height adjustable as shown in Fig. 7b and 7d).
Regarding claim 16, Faber discloses a vehicle (40 in Fig. 6a) including a luggage compartment (Fig. 6a, rear compartment of vehicle 40) and a luggage compartment assembly (110 in Fig. 6a) mounted in the luggage compartment according to claim 1.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faber et al. (US 6254162 B1) as applied above to claim 1, and further in view of Antolin-Fernandez et al. (EP 1717104 A1) and Petiteau (US 20160288734 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Faber discloses the luggage compartment assembly according to claim 1, but fails to disclose the at least one wall is formed with an extractable woven tarpaulin.
Antolin-Fernandez teaches the wall can be made of extractable material (Antolin-Fernandez, paragraph 18, wall can be made from flexible material therefore extractable).
Antolin-Fernandez is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle luggage storage compartment that is extendable as Faber.
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 assembly as taught by Faber to incorporate the teachings of Antolin-Fernandez with a reasonable expectation of success and use a flexible material for the wall such that it is formed with extractable material. Doing so allows access from the side through an opening without having to rotate the other panels which can be inconvenient when the compartment is stored with other items obstructing its movement.
Petiteau teaches a woven tarpaulin (Petiteau, paragraph 46, and Fig. 5b-5d shows it is also adjustable in vertical direction).
Petiteau is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle storage compartment that is extendable as Faber in view of Antolin-Fernandez.
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 assembly as taught by Faber in view of Antolin-Fernandez to incorporate the teachings of Petiteau with a reasonable expectation of success and use a woven tarpaulin. Doing so provides waterproof feature (Petiteau, paragraph 46) to the storage for protection of the items stored inside.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faber et al. (US 6254162 B1) as applied above to claim 1, and further in view of Hack et al. (WO 2017067875 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Faber discloses the luggage compartment assembly according to claim 1, but fails to disclose at least one securing element, for securing an object lying on the at least one storage segment.
Hack teaches at least one securing element (Hack, abstract and Fig. 1 and 4A, net and cable), for securing (Hack, Fig. 1 and 4A) an object lying on the at least one storage segment (Faber discloses in Col. 7 lines 17-19 cargos can lie over the storage segment).
Hack is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle storage compartment as Faber.
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 assembly as taught by Faber to incorporate the teachings of Hack with a reasonable expectation of success and use a securing element. Doing so ensures security of the item during transportation and avoids damages to both the vehicle and the item.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Faber in view of Hack teaches the luggage compartment assembly according to claim 9, wherein the luggage compartment assembly includes an electronically controllable adjusting device (Hack, fifth paragraph on page 7 of machine translation NPL, electromotive drive) for adjusting a length (Hack, fifth paragraph on page 7 of machine translation NPL, length of the securing cables with pulleys and therefore also the net) of the at least one securing element.
Examiner notes that the limitation “electronically controllable adjusting device” is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because it is determined to have sufficient structure.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Faber in view of Hack teaches the luggage compartment assembly according to claim 10, wherein the luggage compartment assembly is adapted to control the adjusting device of the at least one securing element in dependence on a pressure applied onto the at least one storage segment by action of the at least one securing element or a tensile force introduced into the at least one securing element (Hack, second to last paragraph on page 3 of machine translation NPL, sensors measure forces in securing element which would apply to the storage segment; and adjusting the press/pull of the securing element accordingly).
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faber et al. (US 6254162 B1).
Regarding claim 15, Faber discloses the luggage compartment assembly according to claim 14, but fails to disclose adjust each storage segment of the plurality of storage segments independently of the remaining ones of the plurality of storage segments along the adjustment direction.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the assembly such that there are multiple storage segments independently adjustable from each other (Fig. 5 of Faber already teaches there can be two), since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), MPEP 2144.04 VI. Doing so provides more protective and compartmentalized storages for users.
Regarding claim 17, Faber discloses the vehicle according to claim 16, wherein the luggage compartment is arranged in the region of the front of the vehicle (Faber, Fig. 1 shows in a front region).
Fig. 1 embodiment of Faber is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle storage compartment with adjustable segments as Faber’s embodiment of Fig. 6a-7d.
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 assembly as taught by embodiment Fig. 6a-7d of Faber to incorporate the teachings of Faber’s Fig. 1 embodiment with a reasonable expectation of success and have the compartment assembly at the front region. Doing so provides a top lid that allows separation and protection of storage items, also provides a storage space on top of the lid.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references that are not relied upon all disclose vehicle storage compartment with adjustable segments.
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.
/WENWEI ZHUO/Examiner, Art Unit 3612