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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “slide mechanism” of claim 10, the “hood lift assist mechanism” of claim 16, and the “torque motor” of claim 17 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claim limitation of a non-detachable attachment of the storage member to the front hood was not disclosed in the originally filed disclosure.
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 2 and 4 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.
Claim 2 is not clearly understood and believed to be incorrect because it claims the storage member is “non-detachably attached to the front hood” when all disclosed attachments would be considered “detachable” by those in the art. The specification has disclosed the use of threaded fasteners for a fixed attachment embodiment and a movable attachment for another embodiment. The examiner has read non-detachbly attached as resisting unintended removal.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zaranek (5,992,718).
Zaranek discloses a front hood assembly for a vehicle comprising a front hood (1) and a storage member (10) attached to a lower surface of the front hood (1) to store an item (39), as shown in Figures 1-4. The storage member (10) is configured to be placed at the lower surface of the front hood (1) when the front hood is closed. The storage member is movable to descend when the front hood is open, as shown in Figure 2. The downward pivoting motion of the storage member (10) about pivot pin (36) meets the limitation, as shown in Figure 2. The storage member (10) has an upper side which faces the lower surface of the front hood (1), as shown in Figure 2. The storage member is configured such that the item (39) is accessible from the upper side of the storage member (10) when the storage member (10) has descended, as shown in Figure 2. In reference to claim 2, the storage member (10) is non-detachably attached to the front hood (1), as shown in Figures 1 and 2. The storage member resists unintended removal due to the mounting bracket (12). In reference to claim 3, the storage member (10) comprises an item holder (20) fixed to the front hood (1), as shown in Figures 1-4. In reference to claim 4, the storage member (10) has a cover (30) to protect the items stored in the storage member (10), as shown in Figures 2-4. In reference to claim 5, the storage member (10) is detachably attached to the front hood (1) by mounting bracket (12), as shown in Figure 2. In reference to claim 7, a descending mechanism (36,38) is configured to hold the storage member against the lower surface of the front hood (1) when the front hood is closed and allow the storage member to descend when the front hood (1) is open, as shown in Figures 2-4 and disclosed on line 50 of column 4 through line of line 6 of column 5. In reference to claim 8, the descending mechanism (36,38) comprises a hinge (36) hingeably connecting the storage member (10) and the front hood (1), as shown in Figure 2. In reference to claim 10, the descending mechanism comprises a slide mechanism movably connecting the storage member (10) and the front hood (1). Second panel (14) of mounting bracket (12) slides through slot (35) of the lid (30), as shown in Figures 2-4 and disclosed on line 50 of column 4 through line of line 6 of column 5. In reference to claim 12, the storage member (10) includes a cover (30) to cover the upper side thereof, as shown in Figures 2-4. In reference to claim 13, the storage member (10) includes a container (20) when can be opened to allow access to the item (39) stored in the container (39), as shown in Figures 2-4. In reference to claim 19, the vehicle has the front hood assembly comprising a front hood (1) and a storage member (10) attached to a lower/inner surface of the front hood (1). The storage member (10) stores an item (39), as shown in Figure 4. The storage member (10) is configured to be placed at the lower surface of the front hood (1) when the front hood is closed. The storage member is movable to descend when the front hood is open, as shown in Figure 2. The downward pivoting motion of the storage member (10) about pivot pin (36) meets the limitation, as shown in Figure 2. The storage member (10) has an upper side which faces the lower surface of the front hood (1), as shown in Figure 2. The storage member is configured such that the item (39) is accessible from the upper side of the storage member (10) when the storage member (10) has descended, as shown in Figure 2. In reference to claim 22, a descending mechanism (36,38) is configured to hold the storage member at the lower surface of the front hood (1) when the front hood is closed and allow the storage member to descend when the front hood (1) is open, as shown in Figures 2-4 and disclosed on line 50 of column 4 through line of line 6 of column 5.
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaranek (5,992,718) in view of Koch et al. (US 2023/0398938).
Zaranek does not disclose the pantograph mechanism to connect the storage member and the front hood.
Koch et al. teaches connecting the storage member (110) to a hood (106) with a pantograph mechanism (116), as shown in Figure 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the storage member and front hood of Zaranek with a pantograph mechanism, as taught by Koch et al., with a reasonable expectation for success to provide movement of the storage member toward the user for easier access.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaranek (5,992,718) in view of Harrell (US 2008/0231066).
Zaranek does not disclose the drawer.
Harrell teaches providing a storage member (100) with drawers (120,150,190) that can be pulled out to a side of the vehicle or horizontally from the storage member to store an item, as shown in Figure 1. In reference to claim 15, the drawer comprises a right drawer (150) is pulled out to a right side of the vehicle, a left drawer (190) to be pulled out to a left side of the vehicle, and a drawer (120) pulled away from the vehicle, as shown in Figure 1.
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 storage member of Zaranek with a right drawer, a left drawer, and front drawer, as taught by Harrell, with a reasonable expectation for success to provide additional storage areas in the storage member that can be accessed from different areas around the vehicle.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaranek (5,992,718) in view of Krajenke (US 2016/0090769).
Zaranek does not disclose a lift assist mechanism for the hood.
Krajenke teaches providing a hood lift assist mechanism (20) , as shown in Figures 1 and 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a hood lift assist mechanism to the front hood of Zaranek, as taught by Krajenke, with a reasonable expectation for success to reduce the effort needed to open a hood.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaranek (5,992,718) in view of Cruz Lopez et al. (US 2021/0047872).
Zaranek does not disclose the torque hinge.
Cruz Lopez et al. discloses providing a torque hinge (12) to hold a position of a two elements of a storage compartment about a pivot axis, as shown in Figure 1 and disclosed in paragraph [0041].
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 hinge of Zaranek as a torque hinge, as taught by Cruz Lopez et al., with a reasonable expectation for success to maintain the position of the hinge at a desired location to improve access.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaranek (5,992,718) in view of Foran et al. (US 2022/0242086).
Zaranek does not disclose the heating device.
Foran et al. teaches providing a heating device in a conduit (120) in a hood (52), as shown in Figure 5 and disclosed in paragraph [0040].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a heating element in the hood of Zaranek, as taught by Foran et al., with a reasonable expectation for success to remove ice and snow from the vehicle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is 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 filed 2/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued the drawing objections by citing a passage of the MPEP. The cited passage is meant for applications directed to inventions that do not need a drawing, such as a “composition”, “pharmaceutical”, or article “where the sole distinguishing feature is the presence of a particular material”. The pending application does not meet the exemptions mentioned in 608.42 B (III). The objection is maintained.
Applicant has argued Zaranek does not disclose a storage member that is movable to descend relative to the hood when the hood is open. The examiner disagrees because Figure 2 shows the storage member in a lowered/descended position in phantom lines compared to the raised position shown in solid lines.
Applicant has argued Zaranek does not disclose an item stored on or in the upper side. The examiner disagrees because this feature is clearly shown in Figure 2. The item (39) is accessible from the upper side of the storage member when the storage member has descended, as shown in Figure 2.
PNG
media_image1.png
433
832
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
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 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 February 25, 2026