DETAILED ACTION
This action is a first action on the merits. The claims filed on December 7, 2023 have been entered. Claims 1-19 are pending and addressed below.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). This application claims foreign priority to Republic of Korea Application # KR10-2023-0058068 filed on May 4, 2023.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed November 8, 2024 has been considered by the Examiner.
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 ”vehicle” 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 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 (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 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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Staib, US 2014/0015270 (hereinafter Staib).
Claim 1: Staib discloses a movable partition (shown in Fig 2-3) comprising:
a housing (housing 122) located inside a vehicle (see abstract);
a partition unit (cover assembly 120) comprising a plurality of partitions (cover portion 130, 132) configured to be in the housing (122) or to extend from the housing (122); and
a fixing unit (spring actuated roller, par [0040]) located in the housing (122) and configured to be fastened to at least a portion of the partition unit so as to restrict a movement of the partition unit,
wherein at least one partition (130, 132) forming the partition unit comprises at least one plate (cover portions 130, 132 are shown as plates in Fig 3) extendable outward from the housing (122).
Claim 2: Staib discloses wherein the partition unit (120) comprises:
a first partition (cover 130), comprising one or more plates (cover 130 is shown as single plate in Fig 3), deployable through an opening in at least one side of the housing (opening is shown around cover portion 130 in Fig 2); and
a second partition (cover 132) extendable from the housing (122) at a predetermined angle relative to the first partition (cover assembly 132 is located 180 degrees from cover assembly 130 as shown in Fig 2-3).
Claim(s) 1-3, 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ament et al., US 6,616,389 (hereinafter Ament).
Claim 1: Ament discloses a movable partition (shown in Fig 3) comprising:
a housing (box housing 11) located inside a vehicle (shown in a trunk of a vehicle in Fig 3);
a partition unit (box housing 11 with curtains 16 and retractable barriers 15) and comprising a plurality of partitions (curtains 16 and retractable barriers 15) configured to be in the housing (11) or to extend from the housing (11) (as shown in Fig 3, col 5, ln 59-65, col 6, ln 5-13); and
a fixing unit (barriers 15 are journaled in the box housing like barriers 16 and include retracting springs) located in the housing (11) and configured to be fastened to at least a portion of the partition unit (fasten within the box housing 11) so as to restrict a movement of the partition unit (roller barriers are disposed on rollers and journaled independently each with its own retracting spring, col 5, ln 60-65).
wherein at least one partition (15, 16) forming the partition unit comprises at least one plate (curtains 16 and barriers 15 are shown as plates) extendable outward from the housing (11).
Claim 2: Ament discloses wherein the partition unit (15, 16) comprises:
a first partition (curtains 16), comprising one or more plates (curtains 16 are shown as plates in Fig 3), deployable through an opening in at least one side of the housing (opening is shown around curtain 16 when retracted into box housing 11 in Fig 3, col 5, ln 59-67); and
a second partition (barriers 15 are at approximately 90 degrees to curtains 16 as shown in Fig 3) extendable from the housing (11) at a predetermined angle relative to the first partition (curtains 16) (as shown in Fig 3, col 6, ln 13).
Claim 3: Ament discloses wherein the first partition (curtains 16) is located to extend from a side (top side) of the housing (11) (as shown in Fig 3) and comprises:
a first plate (left curtain 16), at least a portion of which is located inside the housing (the end of 16 is located inside the box housing 11) and faces the fixing unit (disposed on rollers and journaled independently each with its own retracting spring, col 5, ln 60-65); and
a second plate (right curtain 16) extending along the first plate (right curtain extends along left curtain 16 when both are extended) in a direction away from the housing (11) (as shown in Fig 3, col 5, ln 59-67).
Claim 10: Ament discloses wherein the second partition (barriers 15) comprises at least one roll blinder (retractable barrier which are roller shade like meshes) configured to extend from the housing (11) at a predetermined angle (approximately 90 degrees) relative to the first partition (curtains 16) (see Fig 3, col 6, ln 5-13).
Claim 12: Ament discloses wherein further comprising: a fastener (front pull-out rods) configured to fix an end of the second partition (barriers 15) to a vehicle body (barriers 15 can be affixed to the vehicle by their front pull-out rods in eyes 13 on the trunk compartment floor, col 6, ln 15-16).
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.
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) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ament.
Claim 11: Ament discloses the second partition (15) comprises at least two roll blinders (two additional retractable barriers 15), wherein one of the at least two roll blinders is in one end of the housing (11) (left end of the housing 11) and another of the at least two roll blinders (15) is in the other end of the housing (right end of housing 11).
Ament discloses all the limitations of the claims, except for the upper end of the housing and the lower end of the housing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the orientation of the housing as disclose by Ament such that it has an upper end and a lower end, since it has been held that rearranging parts of a prior art structure, in this case the orientation of the housing, involves only routing skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ament in view of Marroquin et al., US 2021/0331629 (hereinafter Marroquin).
Claim 19: Ament fails to disclose at least one of the first partition or the second partition comprises a display unit.
Marroquin discloses a vehicle partition that includes a display (par [0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the first or second partition of Staib to further disclose a display as disclosed by Marroquin as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying a display to the partition of Ament would have yielded the predictable results of providing an interface in the vehicle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims objected 4-9 and 13-18 to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Ament and Staib disclose the limitations of the claims as discussed above.
Regarding claim 4, Ament discloses further comprising: a third plate (left barrier 15), that is extendable (as shown in Fig 3); and a fourth plate (right barrier 15), that is extendable.
Ament or Staib fail to disclose the third plate at least a portion of which overlaps with the first plate, that is extendable in a height direction along the first plate or the fourth plate, at least a portion of which overlaps with the second plate, and that is extendable in the height direction along the second plate.
Regarding claim 5, Ament or Staib fail to disclose further comprising: a fixing hole in the first plate, configured to fasten the fixing unit to the first plate.
Regarding claim 8, Ament or Staib fail to disclose a rail portion located in the first partition, and movable integrally with the first partition along a protrusion in the housing, wherein the rail portion is configured to move along the protrusion to extend or retract the first partition from the housing.
Regarding claim 9, Ament or Staib fail to disclose further comprising: a rotary member rotatable along an inside of the first plate; a first link inside the housing and fastened to the rotary member; and a second link located in the second plate, facing the first plate and fastened to the rotary member, wherein the rotary member is configured to rotate so that the first plate moves in a direction to extend from the first link out of the housing, and the second link moves in the direction such that the second plate extends from the first plate.
Regarding claim 13, Ament or Staib fail to disclose the second partition comprising the at least one roll blinder is configured to move vertically along a groove of the housing.
Regarding claim 14, Ament or Staib fail to discloses the housing comprises: an upper housing comprising the partition unit; and a lower housing connected to a lower end of the upper housing and configured to move along a transfer unit on a floor, wherein the upper housing is configured to be rotatable with respect to the lower housing.
Regarding claim 17, Ament or Staib fail to disclose further comprising: a handle portion at an outermost portion of the second plate from the housing; and a roller portion in the second plate and configured to moving along the first plate, wherein the handle portion is inside the roller portion, and is configured to press an inside of the roller portion in response to rotation of the handle portion.
Conclusion
Claims 1-3, 10-12, and 19 are rejected. No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE N BUTCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1623. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-6 pm EST.
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 E 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.
/CAROLINE N BUTCHER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676