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 .
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 1-3, 8-10, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Salter et al. (US 2020/0130751).
Salter et al. discloses a vehicle (10) comprising a vehicle body (10) and a front storage module (26) module coupled to the front of the vehicle body (10), as shown in Figures 1-5. The front storage module (26) comprises a drawer (26) and a drawer actuator (42) configured to move the drawer (26) from a closed position, as shown in Figure 1, within a cavity (24) of the vehicle body to an open position, as shown in Figures 2-4, at least partially extended from the front of the vehicle. In reference to claim 2, the vehicle comprises at least one sensor (34) that provides input to a control unit (32), as shown in Figure 6 and disclosed in paragraph [0019]. The clause “configured to prevent the drawer from opening based on an input from the at least one sensor” is very broad and is given little patentable weight. All of the structure necessary to provide this function is disclosed and is capable of performing this function. In reference to claim 3, the sensor (34) senses an area surrounding the vehicle, as disclosed in paragraphs [0019] and [0025]. Ultrasonic sensors are commonly used to detect obstacles while parking. The clause “configured to prevent the drawer from opening based on a determination that the drawer would collide with an obstacle in the area surrounding the vehicle when opened” is very broad and is given little patentable weight. All of the structure necessary to provide this function is disclosed and is capable of performing this function. In reference to claim 8, the front storage module (26) comprises a light (52) that is actuated based on a position of the drawer (26), as shown in Figure 4 and disclosed in paragraph [0024]. In reference to claim 9, the drawer actuator (42) comprises a motor (50) and at least one of a spindle when a screw jack is used, as disclosed in paragraph [0020]. In reference to claim 10, the method is disclosed. The vehicle receives a signal to open the drawer from a key pad (28), motion activation, or a key fob/smart phone (56), as shown in Figure 4 and disclosed in paragraph [0016] and [0019]. In response to the signal, a drawer signal to the drawer actuator (42) instructing the drawer actuator (42) to move the drawer (26) from a closed position within a cavity (24), as shown in Figure 1, to an open position at least partially extended from the front of the vehicle body, as shown in Figures 2-4. In reference to claim 16, the front storage module (26) comprises a light (52) that is actuated based on a position of the drawer, as shown in Figure 4 and disclosed in paragraph [0024]. In reference to claim 17, the signal is received from a button or a motion sensor, as disclosed in paragraph [0016]. In reference to claim 18, the signal is received over a wireless link from a key fob or smart phone (56), as shown in Figure 4 and disclosed in paragraph [0019].
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.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter et al. (US 2020/0130751) in view of Salter et al. (US 2017/0044816).
Salter et al. does not disclose a sensor that prevents opening based on the vehicle movement.
Salter et al. teaches a controller that only allows opening of a vehicle closure when the is stationary, as disclosed in paragraph [0022]. A sensor (32) determines the vehicle is stationary.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prevent the opening of the drawer of Salter et al. when the vehicle is moving, as taught by Salter et al., with a reasonable expectation for success to prevent hitting an object with the drawer or obstructing the driver’s vision while driving.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter et al. (US 2020/0130751) in view of Goto (US 2016/0325712).
Salter et al. does not disclose a sensor that prevents opening based on the vehicle movement exceeding a threshold..
Goto teaches a controller that only allows opening of a vehicle closure when the is vehicle speed is below a threshold speed (vb), as shown in Figure 6 and disclosed in paragraph [0107].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prevent the opening of the drawer of Salter et al. when the vehicle motion exceeds a threshold, as taught by Goto, with a reasonable expectation for success to prevent hitting an object with the drawer or obstructing the driver’s vision while driving.
Claims 6, 7, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter et al. (US 2020/0130751) in view of Gruber (US 2020/0108688).
Salter et al. does not disclose heating/cooling the drawer.
Gruber teaches heating/cooling a front storage module (46). A controller (30) monitors the battery pack (24) via a sensor and heats/cools the front storage module based on the state of the battery pack (24), as disclosed in paragraphs [0037-0039], [0052], and [0054-0063]. In reference to claim 7, The front storage module (46) is insulated, as disclosed in paragraph [0044].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide heating and cooling functions based on the state of a battery and insulation to the drawer of Salter et al., as taught by Gruber, with a reasonable expectation for success to provide safe storage of temperature critical items without the fear of depleting the battery so the car is immobilized.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter et al. (US 2020/0130751) in view of Van Wiemeersch (6,411,054)).
Salter et al. does not explicitly state the controller prevents the drawer from extending based on a sensor detecting an obstacle in the path of the drawer.
Van Wiemeersch teaches preventing a vehicle closure (14) from extending when an obstacle (52) is detected in a path of opening the vehicle closure, as shown in Figure 2 and disclosed on lines 14-42 of column 3. Sensors (32) detect the obstacle and send an input to the controller (48), as shown in Figure 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prevent the drawer of Salter et al. from opening when an obstacle is detected in the path of the drawer, as taught by Van Wiemeersch, with a reasonable expectation for success to prevent damage to the drawer.
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 November 10, 2025