DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicants’ Amendment, filed 11/12/2025, has been entered. Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-13, 16-19, and 21-22 are pending with claims 4-5, 9. 14-15, and 20 being currently cancelled and claims 21-22 being currently added.
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 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 of this title, 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 1-2, 6-8, 10-12, 16-19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonald et al. (US 20050211140) in view of Martin et al. (US 20080018064).
Regarding claim 1: McDonald discloses an apparatus comprising a shelving module 2 comprising a brace 8, 10, 18 (Figs. 1-5; [0021], [0023], [0025]). McDonald discloses that the brace is configured to removably couple the shelving module, in a first position, with a structure of a vehicle, and removably couple the shelving module, in a second position, with the structure of the vehicle (Figs. 1-5; [0025]). McDonald discloses the brace including a portion to insert within a recess of the structure to removably couple the shelving module with the structure (Fig. 5; [0025] – shelf pivot 18).
McDonald is silent regarding the type of vehicle power (engine or electric motor). McDonald discloses that the vehicle can be a delivery vehicle with shelving modules in the cargo area (abstr.; [0003]-[0005]) but does not explicitly disclose that the vehicle is an electric vehicle. Martin discloses that an electric vehicle can comprise shelving modules (Figs. 2, 3 – shelving units; [0042] – can be an electric vehicle). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured the Richter to include electric vehicles as taught by Martin. As both McDonald and Martin are directed to cargo area shelving, as electric delivery/cargo vehicles are well known in the industry, and as Martin explicitly teaches the use of an electric vehicle, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a specific vehicle type from a finite selection of vehicle types (i.e. electric vehicles and non-electric powered vehicles). Such a simple substitution and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results.
Regarding claims 2 and 12: McDonald, as modified by Martin, discloses the structure coupled with a wall of the electric vehicle and that the first position and the second position are different (McDonald - Figs. 1-5; [0025]; Martin – electric vehicle).
Regarding claims 6 and 16: McDonald, as modified by Martin, discloses that the structure is configured to couple the shelving module with the electric vehicle (McDonald - Figs. 1-5; [0025]; Martin – electric vehicle).
Regarding claims 7 and 17: McDonald, as modified by Martin, discloses that the shelving module has a first length and wherein a second length between the structure and a second structure is different than the first length (Martin – Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8: McDonald, as modified by Martin, discloses that the shelving module comprises an opening configured to couple an object with the shelving module and a face configured to prevent a component from escaping the shelving module (McDonald - Figs. 1-5).
Regarding claim 10: McDonald, as modified by Martin, discloses that the structure comprises a second recess configured to receive the portion of the brace and the brace is configured to move, via a track, from the recess to a second recess (McDonald – Figs. 1-5).
Regarding claim 11: McDonald, as modified by Martin, discloses a method comprising connecting a shelving module (McDonald - 2) with a brace (McDonald 8, 10, 18), the brace configured to removably couple the shelving module, in a first position, with a structure of an electric vehicle, and removably couple the shelving module, in a second position, with the structure of the electric vehicle (see above; McDonald - Figs. 1-5; [0021], [0023], [0025]; Martin – electric vehicle). McDonald, as modified by Martin, discloses the brace including a portion to insert within a recess of the structure to removably couple the shelving module with the structure (see above; McDonald - Fig. 5; [0025] – shelf pivot 18).
Regarding claim 18: McDonald, as modified by Martin, discloses an electric vehicle comprising an apparatus, including a shelving module (McDonald - 2) comprising a brace (McDonald 8, 10, 18), that the brace is configured to couple the shelving module, in a first position, with a structure of the electric vehicle, and couple the shelving module, in a second position, with the structure of the electric vehicle (see above; McDonald - Figs. 1-5; [0021], [0023], [0025]; Martin – electric vehicle). McDonald, as modified by Martin, discloses the brace including a portion to insert within a recess of the structure to removably couple the shelving module with the structure (see above; McDonald - Fig. 5; [0025] – shelf pivot 18).
Regarding claim 19: McDonald, as modified by Martin, discloses the structure coupled with a wall of the electric vehicle, the brace configured to reversibly couple the shelving module with the structure at the first position and reversibly couple the shelving module with the structure at the second position and that the first position and the second position are different (McDonald - Figs. 1-5; [0025]; Martin – electric vehicle).
Regarding claim 22: McDonald, as modified by Martin, discloses that the shelving module comprises a locking mechanism (McDonald – 18) configured to occupy at least a portion of the recess and lock the shelving module with the structure while occupying at least the portion of the recess (see above; McDonald - Fig. 5; [0025] – shelf pivot 18).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonald et al. (US 20050211140) and Martin et al. (US 20080018064), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Calkins (US 20120183726) and in view of Cherry (US 4705315).
McDonald and Martin disclose the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claim 3: McDonald, as modified by Martin, discloses that the shelving module comprises a locking mechanism 18 configured to lock the shelving module in at least one of the first position or the second position (McDonald - Fig. 5; [0025]). McDonald, as modified by Martin, discloses a surface configured to hold a component (McDonald - Fig. 1; Martin – Fig. 3).
McDonald, as modified by Martin, does not explicitly disclose a liner configured to adjust a friction metric associated with the surface. Calkins discloses a liner configured to adjust a friction metric associated with the surface (title; [0003]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured McDonald, as modified by Martin, so as to include a liner configured to adjust a friction metric associated with the surface as taught by Calkins. As both McDonald and Martin are directed to cargo area shelving, as Calkins teaches that liners a liner configured to adjust a friction metric associated with the surface is very well known in the art (Calkins – [0004]-[0021]), and as Calkins explicitly discloses a specific liner for shelving, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a specific shelving liner vehicle type from a finite selection of shelving (i.e. select a desired liner configured to adjust a friction metric associated with a surface). Such a simple substitution and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results.
McDonald, as modified by Martin and Calkins, does not explicitly disclose a partition configured to divide the shelving module. Cherry discloses a partition 13, 14, 15 configured to divide the shelving module (Fig. 1; col. 4, lines 29-35). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured McDonald, as modified by Martin and Calkins, so as to include a partition configured to divide the shelving module as taught by Cherry. As McDonald, Martin, and Cherry are each directed to cargo area shelving, as partitions/dividers are well known for shelves, and as Cherry explicitly discloses partitions for shelves, it would have been within routine skill to have added partitions/dividers. Such a simple addition and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonald et al. (US 20050211140) and Martin et al. (US 20080018064), as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Calkins (US 20120183726).
McDonald, Martin, and Calkins disclose the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claim 13: McDonald, as modified by Martin, discloses connecting a locking mechanism 18 to the shelving module, the locking mechanism configured to lock the shelving module in at least one of the first position or the second position (see above; McDonald - Fig. 5; [0025]). McDonald, as modified by Martin, does not explicitly disclose disposing a liner on the shelving module, the liner configured to adjust a friction metric associated with a surface of the shelving module. Calkins discloses a liner configured to adjust a friction metric associated with the surface (title; [0003]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured McDonald, as modified by Martin, so as to include a liner configured to adjust a friction metric associated with the surface as taught by Calkins. As both McDonald and Martin are directed to cargo area shelving, as Calkins teaches that liners a liner configured to adjust a friction metric associated with the surface is very well known in the art (Calkins – [0004]-[0021]), and as Calkins explicitly discloses a specific liner for shelving, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a specific shelving liner vehicle type from a finite selection of shelving (i.e. select a desired liner configured to adjust a friction metric associated with a surface). Such a simple substitution and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonald et al. (US 20050211140) and Martin et al. (US 20080018064), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boos (US 11304546).
McDonald and Martin disclose the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claim 21: McDonald, as modified by Martin, discloses that the shelving module includes a first orientation with the shelving module removably coupled with the structure in the first position and the shelving module includes a second orientation with the shelving module removably coupled with the structure in the second position (McDonald - Fig. 5; [0025]; Martin – Fig. 2 (illustrates shelves in differing positions). McDonald, as modified by Martin, discloses that the second orientation is different than the first orientation (McDonald - Fig. 5; [0025]; Martin – Fig. 2 (illustrates shelves in differing positions).
McDonald, as modified by Martin, does not discuss flipping the shelves (but also does not preclude flipping the shelves) and thus does not explicitly disclose that the shelving module is configured to be turned upside down to move from the first orientation to the second orientation. Boos discloses that one may want to flip a shelf upside down and thus, teaches that a shelving module can be configured to be turned upside down to move from the first orientation to the second orientation (col. 7, line 63-col. 8, line 10 – such as to prevent a shelf lip from interfering with removing packages from the shelf). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured McDonald, as modified by Martin, so that the shelving module is configured to be turned upside down to move from the first orientation to the second orientation as taught by Boos. As McDonald, Martin, and Boos are all directed to shelving, as McDonald and Martin are silent regarding flipping shelves upside down, and as Boos explicitly teaches to flip shelves upside down, if needed or desired, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a specific shelving orientation from a finite selection of shelving orientations (i.e. selecting which side of the shelf should face upwards and which side should face downwards). Such a simple substitution and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ amendments and arguments, filed 11/12/2025, with respect to the previous rejections of claims 1-20 have been fully considered and they are at least partially persuasive. The objections/rejections that have been withdrawn are not repeated herein.
Applicants’ arguments, directed to claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-13, 16-19, and 21-22 are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the reference combinations being used in the current rejection.
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 TARAS P BEMKO whose telephone number is (571)270-1830. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 (EDT/EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicole Coy can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, 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.
/Taras P Bemko/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
11/25/2025