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 because:
The drawings do not illustrate the central control screen claimed in claim 1, and thus the drawings do not meet the requirements of 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the central control screen must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings do not adequately illustrate the storage box. The drawings show adequate views of the storage rack 1, but the box body 2 is mostly shown from its rear view. It is believed that the only views that illustrate the open side of the box body 2 are Figs. 2 and 4, and these views are not easy to interpret. It is suggested that an additional perspective view be provided, clearly showing the front (or open) side of the storage box.
The drawings do not identify the V-shaped angle, and thus the drawings do not adequately show the relationship between the connecting piece and the V-shaped angle such that they have “the same radian” as stated in claim 1.
The drawings do not identify the “accommodating cavity” that is recited in claim 3. The drawings do not appear to show any cavity that has a V-shape.
The drawings do not identify the “opening end of the lower end surface of the box body” or the “connecting end of the lower end surface of the box body.” This renders it difficult to compare the relative positions of the two elements as required by claim 3.
The drawings do not identify the “length of connection between the box body/the storage rack and the connecting piece” or the length of the box body/the storage rack” as mentioned in claim 5. Thus, it is difficult to understand what the claimed ratio means.
The drawings have reduced line quality, and thus do not meet the reproducibility requirements of 37 CFR 1.84(L). Note that the drawings must be viewed in the USPTO Patent Center in order to see this problem (see example below). The drawings likely contain grayscale elements, which cause image degradation in the USPTO electronic filing system. Drawings must be entirely bi-tonal, containing only black or white color values.
PNG
media_image1.png
268
454
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
The Abstract uses the implied phrase “disclosed is…” in line 1, and “according to the storage box under the central control screen in the present application” in line 9.
The Abstract refers to the purported merits of the invention, i.e. “convenient to mount,” “can remain stable,” etc.
The Abstract contains more than 150 words.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 0002, line 2, “has” should be changed to --have--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-6 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.
The claims refer to “a storage box under a central control screen,” however, the drawings do not show the central control screen. Thus, it is unclear how the disclosed box is located “under” a screen. The specification discusses how the storage box attaches to a “connecting beam” of the screen, and it is the examiner’s understanding that a connecting beam is typically attached to the rear of the screen. Thus, the applicant’s device would primarily be positioned behind the screen, rather than under it. Appropriate clarification and correction is required.
With regard to claim 1, the phrase “the storage rack and the box body are arranged on a same side of the connecting piece and form a U-shaped clamping structure with the connecting piece” is unclear. The connecting piece is identified with numeral 3 in Fig. 1. Thus, the storage rack 1 and the box body 2 are above and below the connecting piece 3. It is unclear how the phrase “arranged on the same side of the connecting piece” applies in this case. The storage rack is positioned at the top of the connecting piece and the box body is positioned at the bottom of the connecting piece. In other words, the storage rack and box body appear to be positioned at opposite sides (or ends) of the connecting piece. Therefore, for examination purposes, this limitation is being interpreted as the storage rack and box body are positioned at opposite ends of the connecting piece.
Additionally, in claim 1, the phrase “the storage rack and the box body…form a U-shaped clamping structure with the connecting piece” is confusing. The only U-shaped structure illustrated in the drawings appears to be the structure identified below. However, this U-shaped structure is formed by the connection piece 3 and the box body 2 only, and does not include the storage rack 1. The claim is being interpreted as if some kind of U-shaped structure is required anywhere on the storage box device.
PNG
media_image2.png
186
429
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, in claim 1, the phrase “the connecting piece has the same radian as the V-shaped angle” is confusing. The term “radian” is a unit of measurement for angles. Thus, it is unclear what is meant by having “the same radian,” as this comparison is similar to two objects having “the same inches.” Furthermore, the comparison of the connecting piece and the angle is an “apples-to-oranges” comparison. It is unclear how the connecting piece relates to an angle, given that such a relationship is not well-illustrated in the drawings, as mentioned above in the Drawing objections.
With regard to claim 3, the phrase “an accommodating cavity of the box body is V-shaped” is not understood. As discussed in the drawing objections above, the “accommodating cavity” is not identified in the drawings. An accommodating cavity is shown in the annotated Fig. above, but this cavity is mostly rectangular. Thus, the limitation is being interpreted to merely require a V-shaped element anywhere within the storage box device.
Additionally, in claim 3, the phrase “a lower end surface of the box body is horizontally arranged or an opening end of the lower end surface of the box body is higher than a connecting end of the lower end surface of the box body” is confusing, due to the fact that the drawings fail to identify either element. Therefore, it is difficult to compare the relative position of these two elements.
With regard to claim 4, it is unclear what the phrase “magnetic suction” refers to. The term “magnetic” refers to the use of magnets, while the term “suction” refers to the use of a vacuum. These are two disparate physical concepts.
With regard to claim 5, the phrase “a corresponding ratio of a length of connection between the box body/the storage rack and the connecting piece to a length of the box body/the storage rack is (1-3) :10” is not understood. Firstly, the use of slashes in this limitation causes confusion. Secondly, the “length of connection” is never identified in the drawings. The connection piece 3 smoothly transitions between the box body 2 and the storage rack 4, given that the device is a one-piece structure. Thus, it is unclear exactly where the “connection” between these elements occurs. This makes it difficult to compare the “length of connection” of the elements with another quantity. Furthermore, the term “length” could be measured in various directions, so it is unclear which sides of the device are being compared.
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected based on their dependence upon rejected claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xu (CN 219339333 U).
With regard to claim 1, as best understood, Xu discloses a storage box under a central control screen (see Abstract: “the utility model claims a storage box under central control screen of Tesla”), comprising a box body (10, Fig. 6) , a storage rack (3), and a connecting piece (8), wherein the connecting piece has an upper end (6) connected to one end of the storage rack (i.e. the upper end 6 of the connecting piece 8 is connected to the lower end of the box body via insertion groove 12) and a lower end connected to one end of the box body (connecting piece 8 is connected to the front end of the box body 10 as seen in Fig. 6), and the storage rack and the box body are arranged [on opposite ends] of the connecting piece (in view of the 112(b) rejection set forth above, the upper end of the connecting piece is connected to the storage rack, and the lower end of the connecting piece is connected to the box body) and form a U-shaped clamping structure with the connecting piece (see annotated Fig. provided below); a lower end of the storage rack is provided with a connecting plate (4) and fixedly connected to the connecting piece by the connecting plate (via interaction of groove 12 on connecting plate 4 with the upper part 6 of the connecting piece 8); and a lower end surface of the connecting plate forms a V-shaped angle with an upper end surface of the box body (see annotated Fig. provided below), and the connecting piece has the same radian as the V-shaped angle (as best understood, this aspect is visible in the annotated Fig. below).
PNG
media_image3.png
209
555
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 2, Xu teaches that the storage box is integrally formed (the term “integrally formed” is being interpreted in a broad manner, in that all of the parts of the storage box are connected together to form a single, integrated unit. Additionally, even if the term “integrally formed” is interpreted more narrowly—meaning a one-piece structure formed of single piece of material—there are at least portions of the storage box device of Xu that are single-piece structures, such as element 3).
With regard to claim 5, as best understood, Xu teaches that a corresponding ratio of a length of connection between the box body/the storage rack and the connecting piece to a length of the box body/the storage rack is (1-3) : 10 (examiner notes that, given that this claim is confusing as discussed in the 112 rejection above, Xu is deemed to meet the limitations of claim 5 because its size and dimensions are visually similar to those of applicant’s instant invention).
With regard to claim 6, Xu teaches that at least a portion of the storage box is made of a plastic (“connecting piece 8 can be made of plastic or metal piece”—see English translation of Xu document, attached to this communication).
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(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Xu et al. (US 2024/0010114, hereinafter Xu ‘114).
With regard to claim 4, Xu fails to teach that the storage rack is provided with a magnetic suction sheet.
Xu ‘114 teaches a storage tray (11a) for an automobile, having a magnetic suction sheet (17a).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Xu by providing the storage rack with the magnetic suction sheet of Xu ‘114, in order to enable the rack to securely hold and store items that have magnetic properties (Xu ‘114, paragraph 0059).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references provide further examples of vehicle storage solutions that relate to a central screen in some manner. Note that some of the references do not qualify as prior art, due to recent publication dates.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E FULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6300. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM - 5:30PM.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at 571-270-7741. 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.
/ROBERT E FULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676