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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the expandable storage trays recited in claim 4 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Currently, reference numeral 84 is provided, but the capability of expanding the tray is not illustrated. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 52. 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. 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 4 recites “at least one expandable tray configured to move between: a retracted position that does not obstruct the center console pass-through when cargo extends through the center console pass through; and an extended position that increases a storage capacity of the expandable storage tray when the center console pass-through is not being utilized.” However, the drawings show a tray 84 that appears to be a static element. No mechanism is shown for extension or retraction. Thus, the disclosure does not demonstrate applicant’s possession of a tray which can be expanded into the pass-through area.
Claim 5 is rejected based on its dependence upon a rejected claim.
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meszaros et al. (US 2015/0175040, hereinafter Meszaros).
With regard to claim 1, Meszaros discloses a vehicle (Fig. 1), comprising:
a body at least partially defining a vehicle cabin (interior of cabin shown in Fig. 2); and
a center console (22) disposed within the vehicle cabin and including a center console pass-through (150) configured to enable cargo to extend therethrough for storage of the cargo (see Fig. 11, provided below).
PNG
media_image1.png
350
522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 2, Meszaros discloses that the center console comprises:
a lower storage portion (see Fig. above) coupled to a floor of the vehicle; and
an upper storage portion (see Fig. above) connected to and spaced apart from the lower storage portion to define the center console pass-through between the lower storage portion and the upper storage portion.
With regard to claim 3, Meszaros discloses a track system integrated into the vehicle floor, wherein the lower storage portion is removably and slidably coupled to the track system (see Fig. 8, provided below).
PNG
media_image2.png
372
392
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haddad et al. (DE 102007027164 A1, hereinafter Haddad).
With regard to claim 1, Haddad discloses a vehicle, comprising:
a body at least partially defining a vehicle cabin (interior of cabin is illustrated in Fig. 1); and
a center console (24A) disposed within the vehicle cabin and including a center console pass-through configured to enable cargo to extend therethrough for storage of the cargo (pass-through is visible in Figs. 1 and 7—see annotated Figs. below as well).
PNG
media_image3.png
336
523
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
374
620
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 2, Haddad discloses that the center console comprises:
a lower storage portion (see annotated version of Fig. 7 above) coupled to a floor (12) of the vehicle; and
an upper storage portion connected to and spaced apart from the lower storage portion (via rod elements 82, 84) to define the center console pass-through between the lower storage portion and the upper storage portion (see Fig. above).
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (KR 20230019346 A, hereinafter Park).
With regard to claim 1, Park disclsoes a vehicle (title: “console assembly for a vehicle”), comprising:
a body at least partially defining a vehicle cabin (interior of cabin illustrated in Fig. 1); and
a center console disposed within the vehicle cabin and including a center console pass-through configured to enable cargo to extend therethrough for storage of the cargo (see annotated version of Fig. 6 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
364
450
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 2, Park discloses that the center console comprises:
a lower storage portion (111d) coupled to a floor of the vehicle; and
an upper storage portion (111c) connected to and spaced apart from the lower storage portion to define the center console pass-through between the lower storage portion and the upper storage portion (see annotated Fig. above).
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) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meszaros in view of Renke et al. (US 6,513,863, hereinafter Renke).
With regard to claims 6-8, Meszaros teaches that the vehicle can be “any type of truck” (see paragraph 0021). Thus, Meszros teaches at least a rear cargo area (i.e. a pickup truck bed).
Meszaros fails to teach a foldable midgate separating the rear cargo area and the vehicle cabin, wherein the foldable midgate is configured to fold substantially flat to enable cargo to extend from the rear cargo area, into the vehicle cabin, and through the center console pass-through. Meszaros also fails to teach that the midgate includes a retractable window configured to be selectively retracted into a main body of the foldable midgate for protection thereof (claim 7), or that the foldable midgate is configured to rotate forward into the vehicle cabin to a stowed position that is substantially planar with a floor of the rear cargo area (claim 8).
Renke discloses a pickup truck having a foldable midgate (18) with a retractable window that folds forward into a flat, stowed position substantially planar with a floor of the rear cargo area (see sequence in Figs. 1-3).
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 Meszaros by providing the foldable midgate of Renke, in order to provide for “optionally increasing cargo space by extension into the rear passenger area” (Renke, Abstract).
With regard to claim 9, Meszaros in view of Renke teaches that the rear cargo area is a pickup truck storage bed having a floor, a pair of side walls, and a tailgate (Meszaros teaches that the vehicle can be “any type of truck,” of which a pickup truck with a storage bed, floor, sidewalls, and a tailgate is a notoriously common type. See Renke, Figs. 1-3).
Claim(s) 10, 11, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meszaros in view of Bollinger (US 2019/0351950).
With regard to claims 10 and 16, Meszaros fails to teach that the vehicle is a battery electric vehicle having a frunk. Meszaros also fails to teach a firewall separating the frunk and the vehicle cabin; a passage extending through the firewall; and a door configured to move between a closed position that blocks the passage, and an open position that enables cargo to pass through the passage.
Bollinger discloses a battery electric vehicle having a frunk (26). Bollinger also discloses a firewall (24) between the vehicle cabin and the frunk. The firewall has a door (44) which allows passage of cargo between the cabin and the frunk (see Fig. below).
PNG
media_image6.png
418
502
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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 Meszaros such that the vehicle was an electric vehicle having a frunk as taught be Bollinger, because Bollinger teaches that in electric vehicles “the entire powertrain of the vehicle, such as batteries, hydrogen cells, or similar, may be contained in or below the base of the vehicle, thus freeing both the front and rear of the vehicle for storage and other uses” (Bollinger, Paragraph 0003). Furthermore, it would have been considered obvious to incorporate Bollinger’s door 44 between the frunk and cabin, in order to “further provide selective access or restriction to the uninterrupted path” between the front trunk and the rear trunk (Bollinger, paragraph 0031).
With regard to claim 11, Meszaros in view of Bollinger teaches that the door (element 44 imported from Bollinger) is retractable within the firewall (“the door 44 may further be insertable into the dashboard to be stored in an open position,” see Paragraph 0031 of Bollinger).
Claim(s) 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meszaros in view of Bollinger as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Renke.
With regard to claim 12, Meszaros in view of Bollinger teaches at least a rear cargo area (given that Meszaros teaches, in Paragraph 0021, that the vehicle can be “any type of truck,” and pickup trucks are a notoriously well known truck type). However, Meszaros in view of Bollinger fails to teach a foldable midgate separating the rear cargo area and the vehicle cabin, wherein the foldable midgate is configured to fold substantially flat to enable cargo to extend from the rear cargo area, into the vehicle cabin, through the center console pass-through, through the firewall passage, and into the frunk.
Renke discloses a pickup truck having a foldable midgate (18) with a retractable window that folds forward into a flat, stowed position substantially planar with a floor of the rear cargo area (see sequence in Figs. 1-3).
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 Meszaros in view of Bollinger by providing the foldable midgate of Renke, in order to provide for “optionally increasing cargo space by extension into the rear passenger area” (Renke, Abstract). Furthermore, in so modifying Meszaros and Bollinger, cargo will now be able to extend from the rear cargo area, into the vehicle cabin, through the center console pass-through (150 of Meszaros), and into the frunk (as the door and frunk have already been imported from Bollinger).
With regard to claim 13, Meszaros teaches that the cargo passes through the center console pass-through at a distance elevated from a floor of the vehicle cabin (see Fig. 11 of Meszaros).
With regard to claim 14, Meszaros teaches that a floor of the rear cargo area is at a higher elevation than the floor of the vehicle cabin (see Fig. 11 of Meszaros, in which the rear cargo area floor 66 is higher than that of the vehicle cabin).
With regard to claim 15, Meszaros, as modified by Bollinger and Renke, teaches that the center console interrupts a path along a floor of the vehicle cabin between the rear cargo area and the firewall passage (see Fig. 11 of Meszaros).
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 center console systems with features related to those disclosed by applicant.
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