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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 8 and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of copending Application No. 18538509 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present application is broader than the copending.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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, 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jewell USP 2,934,372 in view of Cox USP 10,363,974.
Regarding claim 1, Jewell et al. US 2,934,372 discloses a floor structure (brief description of Fig. 8) for a vehicle, the structure comprising: a bracket unit (“brackets” 33 and 23 in Fig. 4) fastened (at the lower circled area) by grooves (30; Fig. 4; col.3 lines 25-30; where a bent edge of bracket 23 Fig. 4 is inserted and “held”) to a floor panel (the element 4 (Fig. 4) is an I beam that forms an upper floor surface (col. 3, lines 48-54) so perhaps the lower panel (23; Fig. 4 could be called a “floor panel”, i.e. a panel of the floor); wherein the bracket unit comprises a plurality of brackets (“brackets” 33 and 23 in Fig. 4), and wherein at least one of the plurality brackets (23; Fig. 4) is configured to be inserted into a mutual fixing portion (at the upper circled area; groove 31 of bracket 33; Fig. 4) positioned at an adjacent bracket (bracket 33; Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
1264
824
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jewell et al. do not explicitly teach a hard cover unit on the bracket unit, the hard cover unit being exposed to an interior of the vehicle and having a plate shape.
However, Cox et al. US 10,363,974 disclose positioning an extruded aluminum plate shaped floor panel (liner) (71; Fig. 28, for example; see col. 5, lines 3-4) on a floor structure (131; Fig. 28) and exposed to an interior of the vehicle, where extruded aluminum is considered to be a “hard cover”.
It 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 to modify Jewell to include hard cover as to provide a strengthen configuration.
Regarding claim 6, Cox et al. US 10,363,974 disclose that a door may include a liner, i.e., a scuff, as broadly as recited, (see col. 5, lines 45-49; where the liner is mentioned on line 49; also see the last two lines of claim 12). Since the hard cover unit of Jewell et al., in view of Cox et al., is placed on top of the existing floor surface (which is the top surface of the I-beam (4; Fig. 4) of Jewell et al.) see the rejection of claim 1 above, then when the door having a liner (as taught by Cox et al. once again) is closed the hard unit would naturally be “positioned to overlap the door scuff”, i.e., door liner.
Regarding claim 7, Jewell et al. US 2,934,372 teaches that core (22; Fig. 4; “honeycomb” in col. 3, lines 12-14) may alternatively be made of styrofoam (col. 6, lines 32-33), which is known to absorb sound.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jewell USP 2,934,372 in view of Cox USP 10,363,974, in further view of Hockney US 4,951,992.
Regarding claim 2, the combination fails to teach a plurality of cover cells
Hockney US 4,951,992 can be used to teach that the aluminum extruded “hard cover” of Jewell et al., in view of Cox et al., can be made from a plurality of hard cover units in the form of extruded aluminum planks (13; Fig. 1). See col. 2, lines 26-28 of Hockney.
It 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 to modify the combination to include a plurality of planks as taught by Hockney as obvious modification to use multiple configurable pieces.
Claims 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jewell USP 2,934,372 in view of Cox USP 10,363,974 and Mrozowski US 5,104,176.
Regarding claims 16-17, Jewell et al. US 2,934,372 discloses a floor structure (brief description of Fig. 8) for a vehicle, the structure comprising: a bracket unit (“brackets” 33 and 23 in Fig. 4) fastened (at the lower circled area) by grooves (30; Fig. 4; col.3 lines 25-30; where a bent edge of bracket 23 Fig. 4 is inserted and “held”) to a floor panel (the element 4 (Fig. 4) is an I beam that forms an upper floor surface (col. 3, lines 48-54) so perhaps the lower panel (23; Fig. 4 could be called a “floor panel”, i.e. a panel of the floor); wherein the bracket unit comprises a plurality of brackets (“brackets” 33 and 23 in Fig. 4), and wherein at least one of the plurality brackets (23; Fig. 4) is configured to be inserted into a mutual fixing portion (at the upper circled area; groove 31 of bracket 33; Fig. 4) positioned at an adjacent bracket (bracket 33; Fig. 4).
Jewell et al. do not explicitly teach a hard cover unit on the bracket unit, the hard cover unit being exposed to an interior of the vehicle and having a plate shape and a seat unit.
However, Cox et al. US 10,363,974 disclose positioning an extruded aluminum plate shaped floor panel (liner) (71; Fig. 28, for example; see col. 5, lines 3-4) on a floor structure (131; Fig. 28) and exposed to an interior of the vehicle, where extruded aluminum is considered to be a “hard cover”.
Mrozowski US 5,104,176 teaches a seat unit fixed to a lower panel (24: figure 2) and protruding through an upper end of the hard cover unit (26a, figure 2). The seat unit comprises a lower rail and upper rail (36b, figure 2) where the upper rail protrudes through the hard cover unit. This upper rail can be considered a monopost rail as it only has a single rail support for the seat. This rail is configured to move along a longitudinal guide track, which can be considered to be a groove, positioned within the hard cover unit, as illustrated in Figure 2. The seat unit has a cover portion (56, figure 2) which covers the hard cover unit along a movement trajectory of the upper rail.
It 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 to modify Jewell to include hard cover as to provide a strengthen configuration and seat unit as to provide seating.
Regarding claim 19, Cox et al. US 10,363,974 disclose that a door may include a liner, i.e., a scuff, as broadly as recited, (see col. 5, lines 45-49; where the liner is mentioned on line 49; also see the last two lines of claim 12). The hard cover unit of Jewell et al., in view of Cox et al., is placed on top of the existing floor surface (which is the top surface of the I-beam (4; Fig. 4) of Jewell et al.) see the rejection of claim 16 above, then when the door having a liner (as taught by Cox et al. once again) is closed the hard unit would naturally be “positioned to overlap the door scuff”, i.e., door liner.
Regarding claim 20, Jewell et al. US 2,934,372 teaches that core (22; Fig. 4; “honeycomb” in col. 3, lines 12-14) may alternatively be made of styrofoam (col. 6, lines 32-33), which is known to absorb sound.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jewell USP 2,934,372 in view of Cox USP 10,363,974 and Mrozowski US 5,104,176.
Regarding claim 18, the combination fails to teach a covering on the hard cover unit configured to move integrally with the post.
Phinney teaches a covering (38, figure 5) along a track (16, figure 5) moving integral with a monopost rail that is connected to the seat unit.
It 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 to modify as to prevent debris from entering the rail track.
Claim 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forytta DE-102006052601 in view of Hasshi USP 6039386 and Luo CN 11185959.
Regarding claim 8, Forytta et al. disclose a hard floor structure for a vehicle, the structure comprising: a bracket device 3 fastened to a floor panel 1 having a first bracket 31, a second bracket 3₂, a third bracket 3₃, and fourth bracket 34 (see Figure 1; Paragraphs 8-9); a hard cover 11 positioned on a top surface of the bracket device 3, the hard cover 11 comprises cover cells that are plate-shaped and exposed to an interior of the vehicle (see Figure 1; Paragraphs 17-20); and an insulating material 5 disposed between the bracket 3 and the floor panel 1 (see Figure 1; Paragraph 9). Each bracket 3 has a rail 9 integrated into the bracket 3 to allow for a seat to be mounted (see Figure 1; Paragraph 14).
Forytta et al. fail to disclose that each of the brackets are disposed above a region corresponding to a specific seat configuration and the insulating material is sound-absorbing.
Hasshi et al. disclose a floor structure for a vehicle having a front floor panel 2 and rear floor panel 22 (see Figure 3; Col. 3, lines 8-21; Col. 4, lines 16-26). The driver seat 24 and passenger seat 24 are positioned on the front floor panel 2 and a scat 23 between the driver scat 24 and a scat 23 behind the passenger seat 24 are positioned on the rear floor panel 22 (see Figure 3; Col. 4, lines 26-32). The placement of the seats in such a manner improves convenience in the vehicle (see Col. 4, lines 34-39).
Luo et al. disclose a floor panel for a vehicle having a layer 6 that is both thermally insulating and sound insulating in order to improve the overall driving experience (see Page 3, lines 38-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the first bracket of Forytta et al. on a first region corresponding to a driver seat, the second bracket on a second region corresponding to a passenger seat, the third bracket disposed on a third region corresponding to a seat in back of the driver seat, and the fourth bracket disposed on a fourth region corresponding to a seat in back of the passenger seat, with a reasonable expectation of success, to ensure that each seat has a rail on which to be mounted that also provides convenience in the vehicle, as taught by Hasshi et al..
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the carliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the insulating layer of Forytta et al., as modified by Hasshi et al., as a sound-absorbing material, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve the overall driving experience by reducing the total amount of noise in the vehicle, as taught by Luo et al..
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 and 9-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMY REGINA WEISBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-5500. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:15-4:15.
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.
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.
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights