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 Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim contains the word “also” in the last line, but the word appears to be unnecessary. 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 4-7 and 14-18 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.
Claims 4-7 recite in the preamble the subcombination of a “a load floor” that is inconsistent with the body of the claim that recites limitations directed to the combination of the load floor and flanges that are part of the vehicle sub-trunk. This inconsistency presents the question as to whether the claim recites a combination or subcombination. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation that is directed to the combination rather than to the subcombination because a sub-trunk flange is not an inherent component of the load floor. Claims 5-7 are rejected for having similar defects and for being dependent on claim 4 and therefore containing the same defect.
Claims 14-18 recite in the preamble the subcombination of a “a load floor” that is inconsistent with the body of the claim that recites limitations directed to the combination of the load floor and flanges that are part of the vehicle sub-trunk. This inconsistency presents the question as to whether the claim recites a combination or subcombination. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation that is directed to the combination rather than to the subcombination because a sub-trunk flange is not an inherent component of the load floor. Claim 18 is rejected for having a similar defect. Furthermore, claims 15-17 are rejected as being dependent on claim 14 and therefore containing the same defect.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 8-13, 19 and 21 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art of record fails to show alone or in combination the features of a load floor as claimed comprising three hinged board as claimed, a torsion spring providing a bias forces as claimed and at least two of a magnet and a metal plate as claimed to keep the first and second board arranged at a zero angle or a vehicle as claimed comprising a vehicle body as claimed, a transitionable seat as claimed, a load floor to cover a sub-trunk as claimed comprising three hinged board as claimed, and a magnet or a metal plate as claimed to keep the first and second board arranged at a zero angle and overcome a bias as claimed .
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 4-7 and 15-18 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.
Claim 14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Conclusion
The applicant in invited to contact the examiner regarding the current rejection.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. GB2555433 discloses a 3-part hinged load floor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS A MCFALL whose telephone number is (571)270-5769. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-4.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached at (571)272-6886. 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.
/Nicholas McFall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights