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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Comments
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 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.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element T should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 18/179239, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. At least claims 5 and 17-18 include subject matter not present or supported in the prior application including the slidable base member includes a removable panel, which was newly added with the embodiment of FIG.8. For the purposes of treating these claims on the merits, the effective filing date will be 10/30/23.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
At [0125], line 4, “816B” should be “816b” to correspond to the drawing figures.
At [0125], line 5, “front wall 816” should be “front wall 816c” as set forth on line 4.
At [0129], line 8, “to” should be inserted before “provide”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 top-member mounting points of claim 3; the one or more slide mounting points of the first bracket located between the top-member mounting points of claim 3; the first drawer slide mounted to the vertically oriented surface between the vertically oriented surface and the top-member mounting points of claim 4; the gap of claim 6; the top member coupled with the slidable base member so that the two can slide together of claim 7; and the one or more top-member mounting points of claim 19 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 Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: on line 1, “wherein:” should be removed as line 2 recites “wherein”. 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 1-19 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 1, there is an inconsistency between the language in the preamble which sets forth that the claim is directed to a subcombination (the subcombination not including as a listed feature the first drawer slide) and line 14 reciting a combination in that the first drawer slide is coupled to the first wall of the slidable base member, thereby making the scope of the claim indefinite and unclear. The first drawer slide is not positively recited to be included as a feature of the invention. The limitations with regard to the particulars of the first drawer slide are not positively recited and will not be given weight when determining the patentability of the claim. This pertains specifically to the limitations of the first drawer slide coupling the first wall of the slidable base member with the first bracket at the one or more slide mounting points of the first wall, and the first drawer slide being adapted to support the slidable base member while allowing the slidable base member to slide toward the front end of the vehicle and toward the rear end of the vehicle. Applicant is required to clarify what subject matter the claim is intended to be drawn to, i.e., combination or subcombination, and to amend the language of the claim to be consistent with this intent. For the purposes of examination on the merits, the claim and its dependents will be taken to be subcombination type claims.
Claim 3 is indefinite as it recites limitations of the top member forming a shelf above the slidable base member but not the top member itself. The top member is not recited to be included as a feature of the invention, only the mounting points to which the top member is adapted to be coupled. The narrowing limitations of the top member are not given weight when determining patentability in this claim.
Claim 3 is additionally indefinite because the recitation that the slide mounting points of the first bracket are located between the one or more top-member mounting points is unclear and finds no support in the specification as originally filed.
Claim 3 is further indefinite because the first drawer slide is said to be mounted to the vertically oriented surface between the vertically oriented surface and the one or more top-member mounting points which is unclear. How can the first drawer slide be mounted to the vertically oriented surface and between it and another component? This claim will be examined as best understood.
For claim 7, it is unclear how the top member is coupled with the slidable base member so that the two can slide together. The drawing figures only apparently show and anticipate a stationary top member (shelf 706) which does not slide with the base member (704) when the base member slides out ([0109]). Further explanation is requested.
Claim 10 recites positive limitations of the vehicle including a rear door. It is unclear if the rear door is meant to be positively recited as a feature of the system. Claim 10 is inconsistent in its language where the preamble sets forth that the claim is directed to a subcombination and the recitation of a rear door covering the opening, thereby making the scope of the claim indefinite and unclear. Applicant is required to clarify what subject matter the claim is intended to be drawn to, i.e., combination or subcombination, and to amend the language of the claim to be consistent with this intent.
In claim 16, there is an inconsistency between the language in the preamble which sets forth that the claim is directed to a subcombination and the recitation that the storage system is mounted in the storage area of the vehicle, thereby making the scope of the claim indefinite and unclear. Applicant is required to clarify what subject matter the claim is intended to be drawn to, i.e., combination or subcombination, and to amend the language of the claim to be consistent with this intent.
In claim 19, there is an inconsistency between the language in the preamble which sets forth that the claim is directed to a subcombination (the subcombination not including as a listed feature the first drawer slide) and lines 21-22 reciting a combination in that the slide mounting points are coupled to the drawer slide and line 27 reciting a combination in that the drawer slide is coupled to the first wall, thereby making the scope of the claim indefinite and unclear. It is unclear if the drawer slide is to be considered a feature of the storage system or separate therefrom. Applicant is required to clarify what subject matter the claim is intended to be drawn to, i.e., combination or subcombination, and to amend the language of the claim to be consistent with this intent.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Zachrich.
Zachrich (4305695) discloses a storage system for vehicles comprising:
a slidable base member (22) including a horizontal surface and two or more walls coupled with the horizontal surface, the horizontal surface including a front edge, a back edge, a left edge, and a right edge, the two or more walls including (side walls) a first wall extending upward from the left edge and a second wall extending upward from the right edge, the front edge being located toward a front end of a vehicle when the storage system is mounted to the vehicle, the back edge being located toward a rear end of the vehicle when the storage system is mounted to the vehicle;
PNG
media_image1.png
384
638
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a first bracket (FIG.3) including a vehicle-coupling component (at 71,72) having one or more vehicle mounting points adapted to couple the first bracket to the vehicle and a slide-coupling component (at 51,52) having one or more slide mounting points adapted to couple the first bracket with a first drawer slide. The particulars of the drawer slide do not make up positive limitations of the claim.
For claim 16, a width of the horizontal surface of the slidable base member between the left edge and the right edge is substantially as wide as a storage area of the vehicle, the storage system being mounted in the storage area of the vehicle; and
a depth of the horizontal surface of the slidable base member between the front edge and the back edge is substantially as deep as the storage area of the vehicle.
Claims 1-3, 6, 10, 15, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Miles (10076188).
For claim 1, Miles discloses a storage system for vehicles comprising:
a slidable base member (12,112) including a horizontal surface and two or more walls coupled with the horizontal surface, the horizontal surface including a front edge, a back edge, a left edge, and a right edge, the two or more walls including a first wall extending upward from the left edge and a second wall extending upward from the right edge, the front edge being located toward a front end of a vehicle when the storage system is mounted to the vehicle, the back edge being located toward a rear end of the vehicle when the storage system is mounted to the vehicle;
PNG
media_image2.png
468
744
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a first bracket (11,111) including
a vehicle-coupling component (FIG.2) having one or more vehicle mounting points adapted to couple the first bracket to the vehicle and
a slide-coupling component (FIG.2) having one or more slide mounting points adapted to couple the first bracket with a first drawer slide (see wheels 41,42,43,44/141-144); and
the first drawer slide coupling the first wall of the slidable base member with the first bracket at the one or more slide mounting points of the first wall,
the first drawer slide being adapted to support the slidable base member while allowing the slidable base member to slide toward the front end of the vehicle and toward the rear end of the vehicle.
For claim 2, the vehicle-coupling component includes a horizontally oriented bottom surface (see bottom flange of L-shaped bracket) that includes the one or more vehicle mounting points adapted to mount to a factory vehicle mounting point on a floor of the vehicle; and
the slide-coupling component includes a vertically oriented surface (see upright flange of L-shaped bracket) extending from the horizontally oriented bottom surface when the first bracket is mounted to the vehicle,
the vertically oriented surface including the one or more slide mounting points to which the first drawer slide (FIG.2) is coupled.
For claim 3, the vertically oriented surface of the first bracket includes one or more top-member mounting points (23) adapted to couple a top member with the first bracket,
the top member forming a shelf (15) above the slidable base member when the slidable base member is slid toward the front end of the vehicle;
the one or more slide mounting points of the first bracket are located between the one or more top-member mounting points on the vertically oriented surface and the horizontally oriented bottom surface (as seen in FIG.1); and
PNG
media_image3.png
345
436
media_image3.png
Greyscale
the first drawer slide is mounted to the vertically oriented surface between.
For claim 6, further comprising: a top member (15) providing a shelf above the slidable base member when the slidable base member is slid toward the front end of the vehicle and providing a gap (FIG.2) between the slidable base member and the top member,
the top member including a horizontal top surface suspended above the slidable base member by being coupled with one or more of the first bracket and the slidable base member.
For claim 10, the top member and the slidable base member form an enclosure between the top member and the slidable base member (FIG.1),
the enclosure including an opening (covered by 74) toward the rear end of the vehicle when the storage system is mounted to the vehicle,
a rear door of the vehicle being capable of covering the opening when the rear door of the vehicle is closed.
For claim 15, the first drawer slide includes a slide lock (“stop means”) that prevents the slidable base member from sliding toward the rear end of the vehicle when the slide lock is locked. The stop means disclosed stop the travel of the slidable base member relative to the side walls or runners at predetermined positions.
Claims 1 and 6-7, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by ARB Drawer install—Ford ranger/Mazda BT50 youtube video (8/16/20) (www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNfDNQDFRW4).
For claim 1, the ARB video discloses a storage system for vehicles comprising:
a slidable base member (drawer) including a horizontal surface and two or more walls coupled with the horizontal surface, the horizontal surface including a front edge, a back edge, a left edge, and a right edge, the two or more walls including a first wall extending upward from the left edge and a second wall extending upward from the right edge, the front edge being located toward a front end of a vehicle when the storage system is mounted to the vehicle, the back edge being located toward a rear end of the vehicle when the storage system is mounted to the vehicle;
PNG
media_image4.png
653
1297
media_image4.png
Greyscale
a first bracket including a vehicle-coupling component (part of carcass shown below) having one or more vehicle mounting points adapted to couple the first bracket to the vehicle (indirectly) and a slide-coupling component having one or more slide mounting points adapted to couple the first bracket with a first drawer slide; and
PNG
media_image5.png
652
1313
media_image5.png
Greyscale
the first drawer slide coupling the first wall of the slidable base member with the first bracket at the one or more slide mounting points of the first wall, the first drawer slide being adapted to support the slidable base member while allowing the slidable base member to slide toward the front end of the vehicle and toward the rear end of the vehicle.
For claim 6, further comprising: a top member providing a shelf above the slidable base member when the slidable base member is slid toward the front end of the vehicle and providing a gap (see the space where the additional slide out tray is provided) between the slidable base member and the top member,
PNG
media_image6.png
660
1318
media_image6.png
Greyscale
the top member including a horizontal top surface (as seen above) suspended above the slidable base member by being coupled with one or more of the first bracket and the slidable base member.
For claim 7, the top member is coupled with the slidable base member and both the top member and the slidable base member can slide (as seen in the screenshots above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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.
Claims 2-6, 8-10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zachrich in view of Miles and further in view of Rand (6092708) and CN 202022152 (CN 152).
For claims 2-3, Zachrich fails to provide the specific vehicle coupling component and slide coupling components recited, features taught by Miles. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided in place of first bracket of Zachrich the bracket and slide system as taught by Miles as an obvious expedient.
The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR, 550 US at 82 USPQ2d at 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR) supports this rationale of a simple substitution.
Courts have recognized that it would have been obvious to substitute one known element for another that performs the same function, where the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See, e.g., Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 1344 (Fed. Circ. 2008) (concluding that the claims were obvious, noting that “[t]he asserted claims simply substitute a resistive electrical switch for the mechanical pressure switch").
For claim 4, Rand (6092708) teaches a top member capable of being coupled to a bracket, the top member includes one or more sides extending downward from a top surface of the top member (as seen in FIG.2), the one or more sides of the top member (FIG.2) capable of coupling with a bracket at mounting points.
For claim 6, Rand further teaches the top member providing a shelf above a lower surface of the vehicle and providing a gap between the lower surface and the top member, the top member including a horizontal top surface suspended above the lower surface by the side extending downward.
PNG
media_image7.png
786
703
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided for Zachrich a top member as taught by Rand capable of attaching to the bracket in order to create a shelf for additional storage or protection of items.
For claim 5, Zachrich, as modified, lacks the top surface of the top member includes at least one removable panel, a feature taught by CN 202022152 which teaches a top plate (3) having a main board (31) and a flip cover (32).
PNG
media_image8.png
458
701
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided in place of the top member of Zachrich, as modified, a main board and flip cover as taught by CN 152 in order to allow access into the enclosure without moving the base member.
For claim 8, the top member includes: a vertical surface (FIG.2) extending downward from the horizontal top surface of the top member, the vertical surface forming a barrier with a front wall extending upward from the front edge of the slidable base member.
For claim 9, the top member includes a plurality of mounting points allowing the horizontal top surface to be adjusted vertically (see Rand, FIG.2) relative to the slidable base member.
For claims 10 and 19, when combined above Zachrich, as modified, discloses the top member and the slidable base member form an enclosure (space) between the top member and the slidable base member, the enclosure including an opening toward the rear end of the vehicle when the storage system is mounted to the vehicle, a rear door of the vehicle covering the opening when the rear door of the vehicle is closed.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zachrich applied to claim 1, in view of one of Loew et al. (5139186).
For claims 12 and 13, Zachrich discloses the first wall of the slidable base member extends upward from the horizontal surface beyond the first drawer slide to a top edge for the first wall and the slidable base member includes a front wall extending upward from the front edge of the horizontal surface.
Zachrich lacks the top edge of the first wall and the front wall including a row of elongated perforations forming accessory attachment points for attaching accessories to the slidable base member.
Loew et al. teach the use and desirability of providing perforations for attachment of accessories such as tiedowns and divider walls, where a series of elongated holes (30,130a,b) are provided (FIGS. 1 and 2, below). The divider wall (FIG.2) mounted at various positions due to the various locations of the holes (perforations).
PNG
media_image9.png
198
217
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
204
345
media_image10.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided at the third wall of Zachrich perforations and a variable mounted divider wall as taught by Loew et al. in order to better secure cargo within the slide base member.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zachrich as applied to claim 1 above in view of Miles, Loew et al. (5139186) and further in view of Rand (6092708).
Zachrich as applied to claim 1 above further discloses a third wall extending upward from the front edge of the horizontal surface (FIG.1) but fails to provide the specific vehicle coupling component and slide coupling components recited, features taught by Miles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided in place of first bracket of Zachrich the bracket and slide system as taught by Miles as an obvious expedient.
The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR, 550 US at 82 USPQ2d at 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR) supports this rationale of a simple substitution.
Courts have recognized that it would have been obvious to substitute one known element for another that performs the same function, where the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See, e.g., Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 1344 (Fed. Circ. 2008) (concluding that the claims were obvious, noting that “[t]he asserted claims simply substitute a resistive electrical switch for the mechanical pressure switch").
Zachrich, as modified, further discloses the first wall of the slidable base member extends upward from the horizontal surface beyond the first drawer slide to a top edge for the first wall and the slidable base member includes a front wall extending upward from the front edge of the horizontal surface.
Zachrich lacks the third wall including a plurality of perforations forming accessory attachment points for attaching accessories to the slidable base member at various positions of the third wall.
Loew et al. teach the use and desirability of providing perforations for attachment of accessories such as tiedowns and divider walls, where a series of elongated holes (30,130a,b) are provided (FIGS. 1 and 2, below). The divider wall (FIG.2) mounted at various positions due to the various locations of the holes (perforations).
PNG
media_image9.png
198
217
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
204
345
media_image10.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided at the third wall of Zachrich perforations and a variable mounted divider wall as taught by Loew et al. in order to better secure cargo within the slide base member.
Rand (6092708) teaches a top member (FIG.2) capable of being coupled to a bracket, the top member forming a shelf.
PNG
media_image7.png
786
703
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have added, for Zachrich, as modified, a top member as taught by Rand capable of attaching to the bracket in order to create a shelf for additional storage or protection of items.
Claims 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zachrich, as modified, and applied to claim 6 above and in view of Tognetti (5649731).
Zachrich, as modified, fails to provide the back edge of the slidable base member and the top member each include a contour toward the rear end of the vehicle when the storage system is installed in the vehicle, the contour accommodating a shape on an inside of the vehicle.
Tognetti generally teaches the use of contouring specifically with regard to a slidable base member (12) which is contoured (FIGS.1-2) to fit the shape of the inside of the vehicle (wheel wells).
PNG
media_image11.png
300
580
media_image11.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the slidable base member and top member of Zachrich, as modified, to be contoured as taught by Tognetti in order to allow for maximum use of available surface area/space, while conforming to the vehicle interior.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the contour of Zachrich, as modified, to be at the rear end thereof to accommodate a rear latch implicit on the vehicle of Zachrich, as modified, and known in the art.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zachrich as applied above to claim 1 and in view of DE 202021105227 (DE 227).
Please note, as set forth above, the effective filing date for claims 17-18 is 10/30/23.
For claim 17, Zachrich fails to provide the slidable base member with a removable panel as recited.
DE 227 teaches the use of a base member (102) with a removable panel (108), the removable panel including a portion of the horizontal surface of the base member at a rear edge thereof, the removable panel allowing access underneath the surface in the vehicle.
PNG
media_image12.png
402
565
media_image12.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the slidable base member of Zachrich with a removable panel as taught by DE 227 in order to allow an occupant access to the space beneath the surface.
Zachrich, as modified, lacks the specific placement of the removable panel being at a front edge of the surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the removable panel of Zachrich, as modified, at a front edge as an obvious modification based on design choice and available space beneath the surface and convenience. A mere change in the placement is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art as it does not alter the functional relationship between the parts or produce an unexpected result.
For claim 18, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the removable panel of Zachrich, as modified, with a portion of an upstanding front wall because as seen in DE 227 the removable panel is positioned at the edge not spaced inwards therefrom and in order to prevent the upstanding wall of Zachrich (as seen in FIG.2) from hindering access to the space beneath the surface.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rivas Franco et al. ((2019/0084485) disclose all the limitations of at least claim 1 including a storage system (FIG.2a) for vehicles comprising:
a slidable base member (70) including a horizontal surface and two or more walls coupled with the horizontal surface, the horizontal surface including a front edge, a back edge, a left edge, and a right edge, the two or more walls including a first wall extending upward from the left edge and a second wall extending upward from the right edge, the front edge being located toward a front end of a vehicle when the storage system is mounted to the vehicle, the back edge being located toward a rear end of the vehicle when the storage system is mounted to the vehicle;
PNG
media_image13.png
554
685
media_image13.png
Greyscale
a first bracket (14,30) including
a vehicle-coupling component (32) having one or more vehicle mounting points adapted to couple the first bracket to the vehicle and
a slide-coupling component (36) having one or more slide mounting points adapted to couple the first bracket with a first drawer slide (44,48); and
the first drawer slide coupling the first wall of the slidable base member with the first bracket at the one or more slide mounting points of the first wall,
the first drawer slide being adapted to support the slidable base member while allowing the slidable base member to slide toward the front end of the vehicle and toward the rear end of the vehicle.
Additionally, Wang et al. (2020/0214445) disclose a storage system for vehicles comprising: a slidable base member (200) and bracket as recited.
PNG
media_image14.png
564
515
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Both Terry (6120075) and Husk (6848873) teach perforations where Terry includes perforations (20, FIG.3, below left) and Husk provides perforations (60a-h, FIG.3, right).
PNG
media_image15.png
292
576
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
227
729
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Burns et al. (7543872) discloses a slidable base member and bracket as seen in FIGS.1-2.
PNG
media_image17.png
357
389
media_image17.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image18.png
245
436
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HILARY L GUTMAN whose telephone number is 571.272.6662. 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, VIVEK KOPPIKAR can be reached on 571.272.5109. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the 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. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HILARY L GUTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612B