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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
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 1-21 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “first box” in claims 1, 14, and 18 is used by the claim to mean “any structure that would allow the holding of articles,” while the accepted meaning is “a container with a flat base and sides.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claims 3-13, 15-17, and 19-21 are rejected for depending upon a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonnes et al. (US 7152897) in view of Landry (US 5397160).
Regarding claim 1, Bonnes et al. discloses a console assembly (10) for a vehicle interior (abstract), the console assembly comprising: a first box (20) being arranged on a carrier of the vehicle interior (col. 5, lines 34-36), and a second box (12) being arranged on the first box (20); a securing device adapted to engage with the carrier and/or the first box and the second box (col. 9, line 63 – col. 10, line 2), wherein the securing device is configured to secure and/or restrict separation of the second box from the first box, and/or the first box from the carrier in an event of a crash/impact (col. 9, line 63 – col. 10, line 2), wherein a first bracket (60) being arranged on the carrier and/or in the first box (Figs. 1-3), and a second bracket ((84),(86) of (90)) is adapted to attach the second box and the first box (Figs. 1-3), and wherein the securing device is adapted to engage with the first bracket and the second bracket to secure and/or restrict separation of the second box from the first box, and/or the first box from the carrier in the event of the crash/impact (col. 9, line 63 – col. 10, line 2).
Bonnes et al. does not explicitly teach the securing device is a strap.
Landry, like Bonnes et al., teaches a console assembly for a vehicle, and further teaches a strap (102) adapted to engage with the first bracket (112) and the second bracket (112) to secure and/or restrict separation of the second box from the first box, and/or the first box from the carrier (Fig. 3).
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 console assembly of Bonnes et al. with a strap as taught by Landry, with reasonable expectation of success, because substituting one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Using a known technique of a securing device would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, since they would have recognized that applying the known technique of Landry would yield predictable results for securing and/or restricting separation of the components in an event of a crash/impact.
The term “in an event of a crash/impact” is an intended use phrase, which must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. As long as the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim limitation. Here, Bonnes et al. as modified by Landry has a structure that is secured and would continue to be secured in the case of impact.
Regarding claim 3, Bonnes et al. as modified by Landry teaches the console assembly of claim 1, and teaches (references to Bonnes et al.) wherein the second bracket ((84),(86) of (90)) has a U-shaped profile comprising two legs extending at an oblique angle or perpendicularly from two extreme ends of a flat longitudinal member (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Bonnes et al. as modified by Landry teaches the console assembly of claim 1, and teaches (references to Landry) wherein the strap is fabricated such that at least a portion on a surface of the strap has one or more detents and one extreme end of the strap has a locking block with a slot, wherein the strap is adapted to loop around the second bracket, wherein the strap is engaged to the first bracket by clipping other end of the strap into the slot of the locking block in which the one or more detents gets locked and thus forming a closed loop which is hooked into a hook-shaped portion of the first bracket (Fig. 3, teaches a ratchet and strap assembly (98) which has detents and locking block with a slot).
Regarding claim 10, Bonnes et al. as modified by Landry teaches the console assembly of claim 1, and teaches (references to Landry) wherein the strap is made of a material selected from flexible plastic, and/or textile fabric (standard ratchet and strap assemblies are made from nylon, which is a flexible plastic).
Regarding claim 11, Bonnes et al. as modified by Landry teaches the console assembly of claim 1, and teaches (references to Bonnes et al.) wherein at least one of the first box and the second box are adapted to store one or more articles therein, and/or accommodate the one or more articles (Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 50-52 lists a storage device).
Regarding claim 12, Bonnes et al. as modified by Landry teaches the console assembly of claim 1, and teaches (references to Bonnes et al.) wherein the carrier is a floor or a roof of the vehicle interior (Fig. 1, col. 5, lines 34-36, floor).
Regarding claim 13, Bonnes et al. as modified by Landry teaches the console assembly of claim 1, and teaches (references to Bonnes et al.) wherein the second box is slidably arranged on/in the first box (Figs. 2-3, col. 6, lines 61-62, teaches the second box slidable on the first box).
Regarding claim 14, Bonnes et al. discloses a safety system for a console assembly (10) of a vehicle interior (abstract), the safety system comprising: a first bracket (60) adapted to being arranged on a carrier of the vehicle interior and/or a first box of the console assembly (Figs. 1-3), the first box (20) is adapted to being arranged on the carrier (col. 5, lines 34-36), a second bracket ((84),(86) of (90)) adapted to configure a second box (12) of the console assembly on the first box (20); and a securing device adapted to engage with the first bracket and the second bracket (col. 9, line 63 – col. 10, line 2), wherein the engaged securing device is configured to secure and/or restrict separation of the second box from the first box, and/or the first box from the carrier in an event of a crash/impact (col. 9, line 63 – col. 10, line 2).
Bonnes et al. does not explicitly teach the securing device is a strap.
Landry, like Bonnes et al., teaches a safety system, and further teaches a strap (102) adapted to engage with the first bracket (112) and the second bracket (112), wherein the engaged strap is configured to secure and/or restrict separation of the second box from the first box, and/or the first box from the carrier (Fig. 3).
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 safety system of Bonnes et al. with a strap as taught by Landry, with reasonable expectation of success, because substituting one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Using a known technique of a securing device would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, since they would have recognized that applying the known technique of Landry would yield predictable results for securing and/or restricting separation of the components in an event of a crash/impact.
The term “in an event of a crash/impact” is an intended use phrase, which must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. As long as the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim limitation. Here, Bonnes et al. as modified by Landry has a structure that is secured and would continue to be secured in the case of impact.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8 and 15-21 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: although the references of record show features similar to those of Applicant’s console assembly and safety system, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious the combined limitation of Applicant’s claimed invention, especially the features providing further details on the strap and bracket configuration of claims 4-8 in addition to the other limitations.
Bonnes et al. (US 7152897) and Landry (US 5397160) combined teach the console assembly and safety system, however, lack the first bracket, second bracket, and strap configurations of claims 4-8 and 15-17. Thus, the prior art does not fairly teach these features as specifically required by the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Johnson et al. (US 2010/0301084) teaches an exterior accessory storage assembly.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLY W. LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-5552. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30am-5:30pm, Eastern Time, alternate Friday.
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, Peter M Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/CARLY W. LYNCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights