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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the application filed on ----11/13/2023 for application 18/507,171. Claim 1 – 20 are pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/13/2023 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objection
Claim 11 is objected because of the following informality: Claim 11 recites the limitation "the first storage compartment" however the depending Claim 1 recite “the first compartment”. It is a clear typo. For the examination purpose, the term is interpreted as “the first compartment”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected because of the following informality: Claim 18 recites the limitation "the second compartment". It is a clear typo for “the second storage compartment”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 – 6, 12 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Salter et al., (hereinafter Dry), US9863171.
Claim 1. Salter discloses: A vehicle comprising: a console 18 having a base housing 38 comprising a first compartment 30 having an opening 60 (Fig. 2 & col. 3, ln 24 – ln 45); a powered cover 56 coupled to the base housing and configured to move between an open compartment position exposing the opening of the first compartment and a closed compartment position covering the opening of the first compartment (Fig. 2, & col. 3, ln 46 col. 4, ln. 5, “the lid 56 pivots about a lateral axis 64 defined by a torsional actuator module 66 that is disposed proximately to the rear portion 58 of the compartment 30. The actuator module 66 may include any electrically (or mechanically) driven component 70 such as motors, solenoids, and the like, to provide autonomous manipulation of the lid 56”, “the lid 56 may rotate between the closed position and the open position”);
at least one sensor 82 including an imaging camera located in the vehicle and orientated to capture images of the first compartment when the cover is in the open compartment position (col 4, ln. 65, “sensing system 74 may further include an object detection sensor 82 for detecting the presence of objects within the enclosable compartment 30. Any optical sensor known in the art that can measure changes from one or several light beams may be utilized, such as an infrared (IR) sensor (image camera).” );
image processing 74 for processing the captured images and detecting one or more objects determined to be of value located within the first compartment (refer to the mapping above, the sensing system 74 process the images captured by infrared sensor for the detection of objects. 72 and 130 in Fig. 5 are objects that are detected with a volume (value) that occupies the space); and
a controller controlling the powered cover to move the powered cover from the open compartment position to the closed compartment position when an item of value is detected located within the first compartment (col. 5, ln 56 – col 6, ln 15, “According to one embodiment, the enclosable compartment locking routine 90 may selectively operate based on the presence of an item within the compartment 30”, ”The lid 56 may automatically lock and/or be placed in the closed position when the object detection sensor 82 … detects that the electronic device 72 (or any other desired item) is disposed within the enclosable compartment 30 to retain the electronic device 72 while the vehicle 12 is in motion and/or out of sight of the occupant”).
Claim 2. Salter teaches all the limitation of Claim 1. Salter further teach: the powered cover is operatively coupled to an actuator that actuates the cover between the open compartment position and the closed compartment position (refer to the mapping in Claim 1 & col. 5, ln 56 – col 6, “the lid 56 may unlock and/or automatically open”, “The lid 56 may automatically lock and/or be placed in the closed position”; i.e., the actuator module 66 operate the lid to open and close).
Claim 3. Salter teaches all the limitation of Claim 2. Salter further teach: the actuator comprises a linear actuator (refer to the mapping in Claim 1 & col. 3, ln. 46 – 61, “alternative means including a slidable lid”, slidable lid uses linear motion, thus linear actuator).
Claim 4. Salter teaches all the limitation of Claim 2. Salter further teach: the actuator comprises a motor (refer to the mapping in Claim 1 & col. 3, ln. 46 – 61, “actuator module 66 may include … motors” ).
Claim 5. Salter teaches all the limitation of Claim 1. Salter further teach: the opening is an open top end of the first compartment (refer to the mapping in claim 1 & fig. 2, the opening is at the top end of the compartment).
Claim 6. Salter teaches all the limitation of Claim 1. Salter further teach: the vehicle further comprises a first seating assembly and a second seating assembly wherein the console is a center console disposed within a space between the first and second seating assemblies (fig. 1, the center console 18 is between driver seat 14 and passenger seat 16).
Regarding Claim 12, Claim 12 recites combined limitations of Claim 1, 2 and 5. Claim 12 is rejected with same reason.
Regarding Claim 13 – 15, these claims recites corresponding limitations of Claim 4, 3 and 6 and thus rejected with same reason.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 7, 9 – 11, 16 and 18 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter et al., (hereinafter Dry), US9863171 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of DPCcars “2021 GMC Yukon Power Sliding Center Console”, YouTube.
Claim 7. Salter teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Salter does not explicitly teach: the vehicle further comprises a first tray disposed within the first compartment for holding one or more items (DPCcars, page 1, compartments in closed position; page 2, first compartment in open position; page 4 – 5 shows 2 trays within the space of first compartment for holding items. See illustration below. Examiner further notes that the variation of parts arrangement is merely “an obvious manner of design choice” MPEP 2144.04 VI. C. ).
PNG
media_image1.png
954
1677
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Salter and DPCcars both teach powered center console for vehicle and are analogous. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable likelihood of success to further include organizer tray disclosed by DPCcars in Salter’s center consol to achieve the claimed teaching. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to make this modification in order to better organize/store items.
Claim 9. Salter teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Salter does not explicitly teach: a second compartment provided in the base housing wherein the second compartment further comprises a pivoting lid that pivots between an open lid position and a closed lid position.
DPCcars, explicitly teach:
a second compartment provided in the base housing wherein the second compartment further comprises a pivoting lid that pivots between an open lid position and a closed lid position (DPCcars, page 1 – 2, see below illustration, the second compartment and its pivot open lid. Examiner further notes that the variation of parts arrangement is merely “an obvious manner of design choice” MPEP 2144.04 VI. C.).
PNG
media_image2.png
957
1686
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable likelihood of success to further include a second compartment disclosed by DPCcars in Salter’s center consol to achieve the claimed teaching. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to make this modification in order to further organize/store items.
Claim 10. Salter and DPCcars combination teaches all the limitations of claim 9. The combination further teach: the pivoting lid further operates as an armrest (DPCcars, page 6 – 7, the lid is used as armrest).
Claim 11. Salter and DPCcars combination teaches all the limitations of claim 9. The combination further teach: the second compartment is located rearward of the first storage compartment (DPCcars, page 3, the second compartment is located behind/rear side of the first compartment. Examiner further notes that the variation of parts arrangement is merely “an obvious manner of design choice” MPEP 2144.04 VI. C.).
Regarding Claim 16 and 18 – 20, these claims recites corresponding limitations of Claim 7, 9 – 11 and thus rejected with same reason.
Claim(s) 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter et al., (hereinafter Dry), US9863171 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yasunaga, US20170193319.
Claim 8. Salter teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Salter does not explicitly teach: the image processing compares captured images to known images stored in memory.
Yasunaga, in the same field of endeavor, explicitly teach:
the image processing compares captured images to known images stored in memory (Yasunaga, 0002, “In the object recognition, image information acquired from an image photographed by a camera is compared with information on the object obtained beforehand, and an object included in the image information is recognized.” 0034 – 0035, “The NVM 14 (a storage) is a nonvolatile memory … includes a database 14a. The database 14a stores dictionary data regarding objects to be recognized”).
Salter and Yasunaga both teach object recognition using images and are analogous. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable likelihood of success to further include image comparation method disclosed by Yasunaga in Salter’s center consol to achieve the claimed teaching. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to make this modification in order to “perform object recognition at high speed” (Yasunaga, 0003).
Regarding Claim 17, Claim 17 recites corresponding limitations of Claim 8 and thus rejected with same reason.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: Dry et al., US20200346531, which teaches powered sliding center consoles in a vehicle that uses multiple sensors including optical sensor, camera and/or photoelectric sensors for the detection of the stored items; Bendel, “Electrically Opened Center Console Storage - a new level of luxury in cars”, which discloses a product of electrically operated center console for vehicle that the lid can also function as an armrest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIEN MING CHOU whose telephone number is (571)272-9354. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9 am - 5 pm.
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, HITESH PATEL can be reached on (571) 270-5442. 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.
/SHIEN MING CHOU/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
2/20/26