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 Amendment
The Amendment filed 12/22/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-7 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-7 have been rejected as follows.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper et al (US 2022/0055545) in view of Chevalier et al (WO 2018234979 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cooper et al discloses a vehicle mounted camp kitchen accessory system (100, Fig. 2; [0003]) comprising the combination of a central frame (114, Fig. 2; [0034]) with an internal drawer (104, Fig. 2) mounted on a sliding mechanism (108, Fig. 2); and said central frame is not a component of a vehicle (Fig. 2). However, Cooper et al does not expressly disclose wherein said drawer has at least one mounting fixture at said front end and at least one mounting fixture on each of said sides that are accessible when said drawer is in the open position; and each said mounting fixture for receiving accessories having coupling fixtures that are compatible with said mounting fixtures.
Chevalier et al teaches a vehicle (12, Fig. 1-2) mounted camp kitchen (10, Fig. 1-2; [0060]) accessory system with an internal drawer (14, Fig. 1-7a; [0062]); said drawer (14, Fig. 1-6) has a front end (24, Fig. 3; [0064], lines 1-2) and two sides (22, Fig. 3; [0064], lines 1-2); said drawer (14, Fig. 1, 3-5) is mounted on a sliding mechanism (16, Fig. 1, 3-5, 8a; [0063], lines 5-6); said drawer (14, Fig. 3-5) has at least one mounting fixture (44, Fig. 3-5; [0067]) at said front end (24, slot 44 may be positioned in any location [0067], lines 4-6) and at least one mounting fixture (44, Fig. 3-5) on each of said sides (22, Fig. 3-5) that are accessible when said drawer is in the open position (14, Fig. 1, 3-5); and each said mounting fixture for receiving accessories (48, Fig. 3-4; 62, Fig. 5; [0067], lines 6-10 & [0069]) having coupling fixtures (46, Fig. 3-5; [0067], lines 6-7) that are compatible ([0068], lines 1-3) with said mounting fixtures (44, Fig. 3, 4a, 4b, 5) in the analogous field of the claimed invention of mobile kitchen assemblies.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the camp kitchen drawer of Cooper et al by substituting the type of camp kitchen drawer as taught by Chevalier et al. Doing so would offer rapid, organized, customizable cooking setups and a space-efficient workstation for cooking gear and accessories.
Regarding claim 2, Cooper et al in view of Chevalier et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 1 above, and Chevalier et al further discloses said mounting fixture (elongate slot 44 may be positioned in any location on the cabinet 14, [0067], lines 4-6) at said front end (24, Fig. 1-2; [0067], lines 4-6) is accessible while said drawer is in the open (14, Fig. 1) or closed position (14, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Cooper et al in view of Chevalier et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 1 above, and Chevalier et al further discloses said drawer (14, Fig. 3) contains a sink (34, Fig. 3; [0065]).
Regarding claim 4, Cooper et al in view of Chevalier et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 1 above, and Chevalier et al further discloses said accessories may be any of a flat work surface (62, Fig. 5; [0069], line 2), a hook ([0067], lines 7-9), a trash receptacle ([0067], lines 7-8), a rack, a towel folder, and a roll ([0067], lines 9-10).
Regarding claim 5, Cooper et al in view of Chevalier et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 1 above, and Chevalier et al further discloses each said mounting fixture is a slot (44, Fig. 4b & 3-5; [0068]) for receiving a coupling fixture (Fig. 3 inset & 4a/b, 5; [0068]) that is a hook (46, Fig. 4b & 3-5).
Regarding claim 6, Cooper et al in view of Chevalier et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 1 above, and Chevalier et al further discloses each said mounting fixture is a female opening (44, Fig. 4b, [0068]) for receiving a coupling fixture that is a male prong (46, Fig. 4b, [0068]).
Regarding claim 7, Cooper et al in view of Chevalier et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 1 above, and Chevalier et al further discloses said mounting fixture is coupled with one accessory mounted to said front end (24, Fig. 3; [0067], lines 4-5) and one or more accessories (48, 62, Fig. 3-5) mounted to one or both of said sides (22, Fig. 3-5; multiple slots may be provided in various locations for accessory engagement [0067], lines 5-6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pages 4-5 of Applicant’s response, claim 1 is amended and applicant argues that Chevalier teaches a slide out kitchen for moveable mounting to a receptacle in a vehicle and does not teach a central frame for the kitchen as in claim 1. Further, applicant argues that the receptacle 66, and the telescopically acting drawer slides 16 of Chevalier require modification to a vehicle so that the kitchen may slide out of the vehicle. With respect to these arguments, the new ground of rejection relies on Cooper et al to disclose a central frame in combination with a sliding drawer kitchen utility area. It would be reasonable to substitute the slide out kitchen utility area of Chevalier for the slide out kitchen utility area of Cooper et al since both are sliding drawer type structures for this purpose. Further, the structure of Cooper et al would not require any modification to a vehicle since the central frame 114 of Cooper et al is not a component of the vehicle itself. The cabinet 114 (central frame) is configured to be mounted to a vehicle with conventional brackets and/or fasteners. In particular, the cabinet 114 is configured to be mounted within a cargo area of the vehicle, such as the tub of a utility vehicle. The combination of Cooper et al as modified by Chevalier et al meet the amended claims as presented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gross (US 2020/0263876) discloses a mobile kitchen unit with a central frame (110) and a drawer (120 or 130) mounted on a sliding mechanism (128, 134).
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 Denise L Esquivel whose telephone number is (703)756-5825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Thursday 7:30 am-5:00 pm, alternate Fridays 7:30 am-4:00 pm.
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.
/D.L.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612