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 § 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 ( 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 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 1 -4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krueger (5,890,329) in view of Niessner (3,888,539) . In reference to claim 1, Krueger discloses a system for use with a floor and a van chassis having a rear cargo area and a front row seating area, as disclosed on lines 45-60 of column 1. A floor inherently has a longitudinal extending aisle portion leading from the rear of the chassis to the front row seating area and a pair of longitudinally extending support portions flanking the aisle portion. The aisle portion is central portion of the floor and the support portions are the lateral portions of the floor. The system comprises a plurality of pane members with a use configuration in the cargo area defining a room (65) , as shown in Figures 10 and 11. A terminus (40) separates the room (65) from the front row seating area, as shown in Figure 11. A substantially flat, horizontal, wipe clean ceiling (90) has a central portion overlying the aisle portion and a pair of strips flanking the central portion, as shown in Figure 11. Each strip overlies a respective one of the support portions. A substantially flat, longitudinally extending wipe clean flanking wall (8 2 ) extends substantially vertically, as shown in Figures 10 and 11. A substantially flat, longitudinally extending wipe clean inclined wall (81) extends from each flanking wall (82) to the edge of the ceiling defined by the strip overlying the support portion, as shown in Figure 11. A plurality of frame member are sandwiched between the panels and the chassis in a space exterior to the room (65), as shown in Figure 10. The frame includes structure used to attach panels (81,82) together. The frame supports the flanking walls (82), inclined walls (81), and ceiling (90), as shown in Figures 10 and 11. At least one furnishing (83,84a) element defines a substantially flat, longitudinally extending base surface (84a) extending substantially vertically from one of the support portions. The furnishing element (83,84a) extends fully to the base surface (84a) from the flanking wall (82), as shown in Figure 11. The system conforms to the interior structure of the van. Vans, like the Ford Transit ® van , Mercedes Sprinter ®, Nissan NV2500 ®,and Dodge Promaster ® van , have interior wall heights of approximately 4-6.5 feet. However, Krueger does not disclose a flat panel extending from the floor to an elevation between 4 to 5 feet above the floor. In reference to claim 2, the room (65) has a substantially flat, vertical, wipe clean partition (40) defining the terminus, as shown in Figure 11. In reference to claim 3, the at least one furnishing element comprises a desk which defines the base surface (84a) . A desk needs a flat surface. The furnishing element has a flat surface (83) so this meets the broad claim language. In reference to claim 4, the at least one furnishing element comprises a bed which defines the base surface (84a). A bed needs a flat surface. The furnishing element has a flat surface (83) so this meets the broad claim language. In reference to claim 7, the method is disclosed since the frame members are secured to the van chassis and the panel members to define the room (65). At least one furnishing (83,84a) is operatively mounted to the room, as shown in Figure 11. Niessner teaches forming a substantially flat, longitudinally extending wipe clean flanking wall (24) extending substantially vertically from the edge of the floor to a corner near the roof (30), as shown in Figures 6 and 7. 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 flanking wall of Krueger to extend substantially vertically to the edge of the floor, as taught by Niessner , with a reasonable expectation for success resulting in a flanking wall with an elevation between 4 and 5 feet above the floor that matches the interior of the van to maximize interior space and to strengthen the room and system to better protect occupants in the event of a roll over. Claim s 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Krueger (5,890,329) and Niessner , as applied to claim 1, in view of Vanderslice (4,163,577) . Krueger, as modified, does not disclose the specific furnishing element. Vanderslice teaches a furnishing element (20) defining a substantially flat, longitudinally extending upper surface extending substantially vertically from one of the strips (26) , as shown in Figure 2. The furnishing element (20) extends to the upper surface from the inclined wall provided for the flanking wall that extends from the support surface overlain by the strip, as shown in Figure 2. In reference to claim 5, the furnishing element (20) defines a raised cabinet over another furnishing element (18), 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 provide a raised cabinet over the desk of Krueger, as modified, as taught by Vanderslice , with a reasonable expectation for success to storage for equipment. Claim s 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Krueger (5,890,329) and Niessner , as applied to claim 1, in view of Steiger et al. (7,641,253) . Krueger, as modified, does not disclose the specific furnishing element. Steiger et al. teaches a furnishing element that defines a flat, longitudinally extending combination surface (159,160,196) extending substantially vertically from one of the support portions to the strip overlying the support portion, as shown in Figures 1 and 11. The furnishing element extends fully to the combination surface from the flanking wall to the support portion, as shown in Figures 1 and 11. The furnishing element extends fully to the combination surface from the inclined wall provided for the flanking wall that extends from the support surface overlain by the strip, as shown in Figures 1 and 11. In reference to claim 6, the furnishing element comprises a wall cabinet (150) which defines the combination surface. 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 wall cabinet which defines a combination surface to the system of Krueger, as modified, as taught by Steiger et al., with a reasonable expectation for success to provide storage for equipment. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT GREGORY A BLANKENSHIP whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6656 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Amy Weisberg can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT GREGORY A. BLANKENSHIP Primary Examiner Art Unit 3612 /GREGORY A BLANKENSHIP/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612 December 17, 2025