Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
2. Claims 1-20 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.
3. Claims 1 and 17 both recite “a main body unit configured such that a loading area is capable of being divided into a plurality of sub-loading areas”. This limitation reads as if the loading area is just part of the vehicle in which the main body unit is installed and the main body unit breaks up this area of the vehicle into sub-loading areas. The functional language “configured such that” also makes it unclear whether or not the loading area and/or sub-loading areas are being claimed in combination or not. Examiner suggests changing this language to “a main body unit [comprising / including / having / with] a loading area” as any one of these words would be in line with the written disclosure and would remove any ambiguity from the claim language. For the purpose of examination, the claims will be treated as if the loading area is formed by guide frames and side walls of the main body itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1, 2, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hofmann et al. (US 6,386,612 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Hofmann discloses a luggage loading device for vehicles (vehicle not currently being claimed in combination due to the functional language “for”), the luggage loading device comprising a main body unit (16/18) configured such that a loading area (area within 18) is capable of being divided (via partition walls 50) into a plurality of sub-loading areas each configured to load luggage therein, wherein the main body unit is configured to selectively slide (via 60/62) along a movement path (out from under a seat, see Figure 2) in a vehicle, and wherein the loading area is formed by guide frames (42,44) provided in forward and rearward directions and side walls (46,48) provided in leftward and rightward directions.
Regarding claim 2, Hofmann discloses the luggage loading device of claim 1, further comprising an auxiliary body unit (24) configured to be positioned in a withdrawn state in a direction of covering the loading area (see Figure 1) and configured to form an auxiliary loading area having a multistage structure with the loading area (see Figure 1) so that luggage can be loaded in the auxiliary loading area in the withdrawn state of the auxiliary body unit (a user could set luggage atop 24 in Figure 1).
Regarding claim 17, Hofmann discloses a luggage loading device for vehicles (vehicles not currently being claimed in combination due to the functional language “for”), the luggage loading device comprising: at least one main body unit (16/18) configured such that a loading area (area within 18) is capable of being divided (via partition walls 50) into a plurality of sub-loading areas configured to load luggage therein, wherein the main body unit is configured to selectively slide (via 60/62) along a movement path (out from under a seat, see Figure 2) in a vehicle and wherein the loading area is formed by guide frames (42,44) provided in forward and rearward directions and side walls provided in leftward and rightward directions (46,48); and at least one auxiliary body unit (24) configured to be positioned in a withdrawn state in a direction of covering the loading area (see Figure 1) and configured to form an auxiliary loading area having a multistage structure with the loading area (see Figure 1) so that luggage can be loaded in the auxiliary loading area when the at least one auxiliary body unit is in the withdrawn state (a user could load luggage atop 24 in Figure 1).
Regarding claim 20, Hofmann discloses the luggage loading device of claim 17, wherein the at least one auxiliary body unit (24) is mounted on a rear surface (28/30) of a seat in the vehicle so as to form the auxiliary loading area (see Figures).
7. Claims 1, 3, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nebel (US 8,757,458 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Nebel discloses a luggage loading device for vehicles (vehicle not currently being claimed in combination due to the functional language “for”), the luggage loading device comprising a main body unit (2) configured such that a loading area (area within 2) is capable of being divided (via partition walls 31) into a plurality of sub-loading areas each configured to load luggage therein, wherein the main body unit is configured to selectively slide (via 58/29) along a movement path (outward from vehicle, see Figures) in a vehicle, and wherein the loading area is formed by guide frames (27,28) provided in forward and rearward directions and side walls (25,26) provided in leftward and rightward directions.
Regarding claim 3, Nebel discloses the luggage loading device of claim 1, wherein the main body unit comprises: a main body (2) configured such that the loading area is formed therein; and guide rails (58,59) mounted on a lower part of the main body and coupled to sliding rails (46,47) fixed to a vehicle body (see Figure 1, rails and vehicle body now being claimed in combination due to positive recitations “coupled to” and “fixed to”) so as to allow the main body to slide.
Regarding claim 8, Nebel discloses the luggage loading device of claim 3, wherein the main body unit further comprises partition members (31) configured to divide the loading area into the plurality of sub-loading areas.
8. Claims 1, 3, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cherry (US 4,705,315 A).
Regarding claim 1, Cherry discloses a luggage loading device for vehicles (vehicle not currently being claimed in combination due to the functional language “for”), the luggage loading device comprising a main body unit (11) configured such that a loading area (area within 11) is capable of being divided (via partition walls 13,14,15) into a plurality of sub-loading areas each configured to load luggage therein, wherein the main body unit is configured to selectively slide (via 16/18/19/20/21) along a movement path (outward from vehicle, see Figures) in a vehicle, and wherein the loading area is formed by guide frames (front and rear frame walls) provided in forward and rearward directions and side walls (left and right side walls) provided in leftward and rightward directions.
Regarding claim 3, Cherry discloses the luggage loading device of claim 1, wherein the main body unit comprises: a main body (11) configured such that the loading area is formed therein; and guide rails (20,21) mounted on a lower part of the main body and coupled (via 18) to sliding rails (16) fixed to a vehicle body (12, see Figures, rails and vehicle body now being claimed in combination due to positive recitations “coupled to” and “fixed to”) so as to allow the main body to slide.
Regarding claim 8, Cherry discloses the luggage loading device of claim 3, wherein the main body unit further comprises partition members (13,14,15) configured to divide the loading area into the plurality of sub-loading areas.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nebel (US 8,757,458 B2) or Cherry (US 4,705,315 A), either in view of Harder, Jr. (US 3,847,452 A).
Regarding claim 4, Nebel and Cherry both discloses the luggage loading device of claim 3, but fail to disclose wherein each of the guide rails comprises a sliding guide mounted therein so as to come into direct contact with a corresponding one of the sliding rails and formed of mono-cast (MC) nylon. Nebel and Cherry both disclose drawer slide mechanisms utilizing rails and rollers. Harder discloses a drawer slide mechanism utilizing rails and a sliding guide (25) where the sliding guide is made from nylon (see col. 4 lines 3-9). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have substituted the drawer slide mechanism utilizing rails and rollers of Nebel or Cherry for a drawer slide mechanism like that of Harder utilizing rails and a nylon sliding guide as a simple substitution of one known drawer slide mechanism for another. There is no inventive step in simply choosing between known drawer slide designs absent a showing of unexpected results.
11. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherry (US 4,705,315 A).
Regarding claim 5, Cherry discloses the luggage loading device of claim 3, wherein the main body unit further comprises: a rear latch (36) configured to engage a striker (37) that protrudes on the movement path so as to fix a position of the main body, as the main body slides from the withdrawn position to the initial position. Cherry fails and a front latch (36) disposed to be spaced apart from the rear latch and configured to engage the striker so as to fix the position of the main body, as the main body slides from an initial position thereof to a withdrawn position. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the Cherry device with a front latch in addition to the rear latch, since such a modification would amount to a mere duplication of parts. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Beyond simply duplicating the existing latch design, a front latch would predictably allow a user to maintain the extended position of the device until the front latch is operated, thus improving overall user safety while using the device.
12. Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nebel (US 8,757,458 B2) in view of O’Connor (US 1,523,136 A).
Regarding claim 9, Nebel discloses the luggage loading device of claim 8, but fails to disclose wherein one side of each of the partition members is inserted into a corresponding one of insert grooves provided in a second side wall among the side walls and wherein a remaining side of each of the partition members is inserted into a corresponding one of receipt grooves provided on a first side wall among the side walls configured to face the second side wall when the partition members are mounted in the loading area.
Regarding claim 10, Nebel fails disclose the luggage loading device of claim 9, and also fails to disclose wherein: the insert grooves are formed in a T shape corresponding to a shape of one side of each of the partition members and are provided in the second side wall so as to be spaced apart from each other at equal intervals; and the receipt grooves are formed by a pair of protruding pieces configured to receive the remaining side of each of the partition members and are provided on the first side wall so as to be spaced apart from each other at intervals equal to the intervals between the insert grooves.
Nebel does not disclose the partition members being adjustable in position. O’Connor teaches that it was already known for partition members to be adjustable in position by providing that one side of each of the partition members is inserted into a corresponding one of insert grooves (7) provided in a second side wall among the side walls and wherein a remaining side of each of the partition members is inserted into a corresponding one of receipt grooves (7) provided on a first side wall among the side walls configured to face the second side wall when the partition members are mounted in the loading area; wherein the insert grooves are formed in a T shape (see Figure 2) corresponding to a shape of one side of each of the partition members (see Figure 2) and are provided in the second side wall so as to be spaced apart from each other at equal intervals (see Figure 2); and the receipt grooves (7) are formed by a pair of protruding pieces (adjacent 2’s, see Figure 8) configured to receive the remaining side of each of the partition members and are provided on the first side wall so as to be spaced apart from each other at intervals equal to the intervals between the insert grooves (see Figures).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the Nebel device with T shape insert grooves along one side wall and receipt grooves formed by protruding pieces along the other side wall, the motivation being to make the partition members adjustable in position, as taught by O’Connor.
13. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nebel (US 8,757,458 B2) in view of O’Connor (US 1,523,136 A) as applied above, further in view of Dean et al. (US 3,905,484 A).
Regarding claim 11, Nebel as modified above would include the luggage loading device of claim 9, but so far fails to include wherein: each of the partition members has a protrusion configured to be inserted into a corresponding one of guide slots provided in a bottom surface of the main body when mounted in the loading area; and the guide slots align with corresponding ones of the insert grooves and the receipt grooves. Dean teaches that it was already known in the art for partition members to include protrusions (42) configured to be inserted into a corresponding one of guide slots (20) provided in a bottom surface of a main body in order to help position the partition member and hold it in place. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the partition members of the modified Nebel device with protrusions and the main body with guide slots, like those of Dean, the motivation being to provide a secondary means for maintaining partition member position and alignment.
14. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nebel (US 8,757,458 B2) in view of O’Connor (US 1,523,136 A) as applied above, further in view of Hwang (KR 20150068589 A).
Regarding claim 12, Nebel as modified above would include the luggage loading device of claim 8, but so far fails to include wherein the partition members are provided so that heights thereof are adjustable and are provided at the same height or at different heights. Hwang teaches that it was already known for a partition member (62/64) to be adjustable in height. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have made the partition members of the modified Nebel device adjustable in height, as taught by Hwang, the motivation being to allow a user to adjust the partition to be better suited for various sized cargo.
15. Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nebel (US 8,757,458 B2) in view of O’Connor (US 1,523,136 A) as applied above, further in view of Morel et al. (US 9,676,313 B2).
Regarding claim 13, Nebel as modified above would include the luggage loading device of claim 12, but so far fails to include wherein the partition members are provided to be slidable along the side walls so as to divide the loading area into the plurality of sub-loading areas having the same size or different sizes.
Regarding claim 14, Nebel as modified above so far fails to include the luggage loading device of claim 13, and also fails to include wherein each of the partition members has a stopper engaged with a guide member configured to extend in a length direction of the side walls so as to be selectively slidable depending on disengagement of the stopper from the guide member.
Morel teaches that it was already known for a partition member (10) to be slidable within side wall guide members (60,70) and selectively positioned using a stopper (111,121). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have made the partition members of the modified Nebel device slidable and selectively positionable along the side walls using guide member and a stopper, as taught by Morel, the motivation being to allow a user to adjust the position of the partition members as needed.
16. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nebel (US 8,757,458 B2) or Cherry (US 4,705,315 A), either in view of Clark et al. (US 5,979,337 A).
Regarding claim 15, Nebel and Cherry both disclose the luggage loading device of claim 3, both disclose wherein the main body unit is configured such that the side walls comprise a first side wall and a second side wall, but both fails to disclose wherein the first side wall disposed towards an entrance in the vehicle is partially openable. Clark teaches that it was already known in the art for a sidewall (44) of a drawer to be drop down (see Figures 4A and 4B). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have made a side wall that opens toward a vehicle entrance in either of Nebel or Cherry drop down, as taught by Clark, the motivation being to provide easier access to contents of the drawer, perhaps allowing a user to slide out a heavier article rather than having to lift it.
17. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofmann et al. (US 6,386,612 B2) in view of Clark et al. (US 5,979,337 A).
Regarding claim 15, Hofmann discloses the luggage loading device of claim 17, wherein the main body unit is configured such that the side walls comprise a first side wall and a second side wall, but fails to disclose wherein the first side wall disposed towards an entrance in the vehicle is partially openable. Clark teaches that it was already known in the art for a sidewall (44) of a drawer to be drop down (see Figures 4A and 4B). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have made a side wall that opens toward a vehicle entrance in Hofmann drop down, as taught by Clark, the motivation being to provide easier access to contents of the drawer, perhaps allowing a user to slide out a heavier article rather than having to lift it.
18. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofmann et al. (US 6,386,612 B2)
Regarding claim 19, Hofmann discloses the luggage loading device of claim 17, but fails to disclose wherein the at least one main body unit comprises a plurality of main body units configured such that movement directions thereof in the vehicle are equal or different. Hoffman discloses one device under one row of seats in a vehicle. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided another Hofmann device under another row of seats in a vehicle in order to increase storage and organizational capacity. Such a modification would amount to a mere duplication of parts. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
19. Claims 6, 7, and 16 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.
Conclusion
20. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN MATTHEW LARSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8649. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-3pm. 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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at (571)272-4544. 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.
/JUSTIN M LARSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734 1/28/26