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 have poor line quality and thus fail to meet the 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, as well. 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
198
386
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
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph 0039, line 8, “the leg 42 fold” is grammatically incorrect.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 7, “slidable” should be changed to --slidably--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, “the second sidewall” lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 5 is worded in a confusing manner. Examiner suggests the following changes:
5. (Currently amended) The vehicle of claim 2 wherein the first rail and the second rail each comprise s coupling to the cart.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, an article is missing before “roller.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, “wheel” should be changed to --wheels--. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-4, 7, 8, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Howe (US 2014/0140797).
With regard to claim 1, Howe discloses (see especially Fig. 1) a vehicle (see annotated Fig. provided below) comprising:
a load floor (see Fig. below) in a cargo area (see Fig. below);
a first engagement member (11A) and a second engagement member (11B) disposed within the cargo area (see Fig. 1), the first engagement member spaced apart from the second engagement member (see Fig. 1); and
a cart (see Fig. below) having a base (see Fig. below), a first side (i.e. the side which engages first rail 11A) slidably engaging the first engagement member and a second side (i.e. the side which engages second rail 11B) slidably engaging the second engagement member, said cart comprising legs (2A, 2B, 3A, 3B) retractably extending from the base and wheels (2C, 2D, 3C, 3D) coupled to the legs.
PNG
media_image2.png
487
712
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 2, the first engagement member comprises a first rail (11A) and the second engagement member comprises a second rail (11B), and wherein said cart comprises a first extension (6A) extending from the first side and engaging the first engagement member and second extension (6B) extending from the second side and engaging the second engagement member.
With regard to claims 3 and 4, the rails (11A and 11B) are directly coupled to the load floor and at least indirectly coupled to the sidewalls of the cargo area (note that this interpretation is consistent with applicant’s specification at paragraph 0059).
With regard to claim 7, Howe teaches that the cargo area comprises a rear trunk or a cargo bed (see Fig. 1).
With regard to claim 8, Howe teaches that the base comprises a planar surface (see Fig. 1).
With regard to claim 12, Howe teaches that the base comprises a toolbox (Howe’s cart can contain tools and features a box shape).
With regard to claim 14, Howe teaches that the cart comprises a first pair of legs (2A, 2B) and a second pair of legs (3A, 3B).
With regard to claim 15, Howe teaches that the first pair of legs comprises a first deployed position and a first retracted position and the second pair of legs comprises a second deployed position and a second retracted position (paragraph 0012, “trolley 1 has two parts of folding legs,” and compare Figs. 1 and 2).
With regard to claim 16, Howe teaches a first pair of wheels (2C, 2D) coupled to the first pair of legs (2A, 2B) and a second pair of wheels (3C, 3D) coupled to the second pair of legs (3A, 3B).
With regard to claim 18, Howe teaches that the first pair of legs and the second pair of legs are disposed below the cart in a retracted position and in a deployed position (compare Figs. 1 and 2, which show the legs below the cart in both positions).
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howe in view of Groglio (US 5,649,718).
With regard to claim 5, Howe fails to teach that the first rail and the second rail comprises an inner rail slidably extending therefrom, said inner rail coupling to the cart.
Groglio teaches a cart system for loading cargo into a vehicle, where the cart system uses rails (64) that have inner and outer components (see Fig. 4). Note that the inner and outer components of the rails are both at least indirectly coupled to the cart (interpretation consistent with paragraph 0059 of applicant’s specification).
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 Howe by utilizing the inner rail of Groglio, “for further extension of the platform, as required” (Groglio, column 10, lines 58-65).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howe in view of Smock (US 12,128,858).
With regard to claim 6, Howe fails to teach that the cargo area comprises a front trunk.
Smock teaches a cart system, similar to that of Howe, for loading into a vehicle front trunk (160).
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 Howe by utilizing the cart system in a vehicle’s front trunk, with a reasonable expectation of success, given that Smock teaches that folding carts can be integrated with a front trunk in a similar manner to a rear trunk.
Claim(s) 9-11 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howe in view of Ness et al. (US 10,131,373, hereinafter Ness).
With regard to claims 9-11, Howe fails to disclose that the base comprises foldable longitudinally and laterally extending walls.
Ness teaches a foldable cart assembly (12) for a vehicle, where a base comprises foldable longitudinally and laterally extending walls (see “folding wall assembly 18”).
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 Howe to have folding walls, as taught by Ness, in order to provide more compact storage of the cart when not in use.
With regard to claim 19, Howe fails to teach a lock engaging at least one of the first pair of legs and at least one of the second pair of legs in the first deployed position.
Ness teaches a foldable cart having a lock (40) engaging each of the folding legs in a deployed position (see Fig. 3), which “may comprise a spring loaded detent…for each leg” (column 4, lines 16-26).
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 Howe by providing the lock of Ness, in order to “secure or selectively latch the folding leg assembly…in the first or the second position” and to thereby prevent the cart from collapsing while transporting a load (see Ness, column 4, lines 16-26).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howe in view of FKT GmbH (DE 102019121262 A1, hereinafter FKT).
With regard to claim 13, Howe fails to teach that the load floor comprises a roller adjacent to the cart.
FKT teaches a load floor for a cargo area of a vehicle that has rollers (see rollers 8 in load floor 1 in Fig. 1).
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 Howe to have rollers in the load floor as taught by FKT, in order to facilitate loading of the cart into the trunk.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howe in view of Beauchamp et al. (US 9,211,899, hereinafter Beauchamp).
With regard to claim 17, Howe fails to teach that the first pair of legs are coupled to a handle and rotate 270 degrees.
Beauchamp teaches a cart with legs that are coupled to a handle (see mutual hinge connection in the annotated Fig. below), where the legs rotate 270 degrees between the collapsed (Fig. 5) and deployed positions (see Figs. 8 and 9).
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 Howe by providing the leg assembly of Beauchamp that rotates 270 degrees, in order to provide a more vertically compact cart in the storage position.
PNG
media_image3.png
360
642
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howe in view of Martin (US 2024/0002174).
With regard to claim 20, Howe fails to teach that the base comprises a battery coupled thereto, said battery coupled to a motor, said motor coupled to drive at least one wheel of the first set of wheels and the second set of wheels.
Martin teaches a cart assembly for loading into the trunk of a motor vehicle, where the cart has a battery coupled thereto (i.e. either the vehicle power source or an onboard power source—see paragraphs 0035-0036), the battery coupled to a motor (82) to drive the wheels (16) of the cart.
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 Howe to have the power source and wheels of Martin, so that “even heavier loads of objects…can be conveniently transported by means of the transport cart” (Martin, paragraph 0037).
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 carts or load-carrying devices that can be loaded into the trunk or frunk of a vehicle.
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