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 .
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 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,246,679. All limitations of the pending claims are claimed in the patented claims. The pending claims are broader than the patented claims, except for claiming the item is a food container. Claim 13 of the patent claims the item is food within a container.
Claims 1-4 and 8-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,827,135 in view of Perelli et al. (US 2016/0059790). The patent does not claim the side walls. Perelli et al. teaches forming a recessed cavity (32) with a side wall that extends downwardly from floor section (12), as shown in Figure 3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a side wall extending downwardly from the floor section, as taught by Perelli et al., to better support items placed in the recessed cavity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-5, 8-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Perelli et al. (US 2016/0059790).
Perelli et al., in reference to claim 1, discloses a method of transporting an item in a vehicle comprising placing an item within a recessed cavity (32) provided in a floor section (12) of the vehicle, as shown in Figures 1-5 and disclosed in paragraph [0036]. The recessed cavity (32) has a bottom lining (34) made of slip resistant material, rubber, and at least one side wall, as shown in Figures 3 and 4 and disclosed in paragraph [0024].
PNG
media_image1.png
477
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The entire element (12) is made of rubber, including the liner (34). The slip resistant material prevents the item from tumbling during transport. The recessed cavity (32) is a depression carved within the floor section of the vehicle. The side wall extends downwardly from the floor section. The item is a food item within a container, a grocery bag, as disclosed in paragraph [0003].
In reference to claim 2, the recessed cavity (32) has a cover (14) configured to situate within the recessed cavity (32), as shown in Figure 2, and to be removed from the recessed cavity, as shown in Figure 3. The top surface (22) of the cover (14) integrates with the floor section (12) of the vehicle such that the cover aligns with the floor section to provide a leveled and substantially uninterrupted floor when the cover (14) is situated within the recessed cavity (32), as shown in Figure 2.
In reference to claim 3, the top surface (22) of the cover (14) is made of a material which matches a material of the floor section (12), as shown in Figure 2 and disclosed in paragraph [0024].
In reference to claim 4, the cover (14) is removed from the recessed cavity (32) prior to placing the item within the recessed cavity (32), as shown in Figures 2-5 and disclosed in paragraph [0029].
In reference to claim 5, the cover (14) has a handle (30) configured to facilitate its removal from the recessed cavity (32), as shown in Figure 2.
In reference to claim 8, the cover (14) is hingedly coupled proximate an edge of the recessed cavity, as shown in Figure 3.
In reference to claim 9, the recessed cavity is provided in the floor section of the vehicle trunk, as shown in Figure 1 and disclosed in paragraph [0023].
In reference to claim 10, the material of the bottom lining of the recessed cavity (32) is heat resistant since it is made of rubber, as disclosed in paragraph [0024].
In reference to claim 11, the recessed cavity (32) has a depth less than the thickness of the vehicle floor (12) since the bottom lining (34) is part of the floor and the cover (14) is flush with the top surface of the floor, as shown in Figure 2 and disclosed in paragraph [0026].
In reference to claim 13, the recessed cavity (32) is rectangular, as shown in Figure 3.
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perelli et al. (US 2016/0059790).
Perelli et al. does not disclose the depth of the recessed cavity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the recessed cavity of Perelli et al. with a depth between ¼ of an inch to about 3 inches with a reasonable expectation for success as an obvious design choice to provide sufficient space to receive the collapsible container formed by the cover, side flap, and other portions.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perelli et al. (US 2016/0059790) in view of Conley (10,899,287).
Perelli et al. does not disclose the specific material.
Conley teaches forming a bottom lining from silicone, as disclosed on lines 13-30 of column 6.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the bottom lining of Perelli et al. from silicone rubber, as taught by Conley, as an obvious material choice with good ultraviolet and temperature resistance while maintaining flexibility to extend the life of the product.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY A BLANKENSHIP whose telephone number is (571)272-6656. The examiner can normally be reached 7-4:30.
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.
GREGORY A. BLANKENSHIP
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3612
/GREGORY A BLANKENSHIP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612 December 5, 2025