DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 0012: “Illustrate” has incorrect subject-verb agreement with “Figure 4A.”
Paragraph 0013: “Illustrate” has incorrect subject-verb agreement with “Figure 4B.”
Paragraph 0014: “Illustrate” has incorrect subject-verb agreement with “Figure 5A.”
Paragraph 0015: “Illustrate” has incorrect subject-verb agreement with “Figure 5B.”
Paragraph 0016: “Illustrate” has incorrect subject-verb agreement with “Figure 5C.”
Paragraph 0045: The phrase “proper align” is grammatically incorrect.
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.
(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.
Claims 1, 2, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Lewis et al. (US 10328860 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Lewis teaches “A storage cabinet configured to reside in a tailgate of a vehicle, the storage cabinet comprising: a cabinet body comprising a compartment structure having one or more compartment cavities that open on a face side of the compartment structure within the compartment structure (see paragraph 15 and Lewis, Figure 1) and an exterior cabinet wall structure securable to the compartment structure and configured to form at least a front face of the cabinet body (see Lewis, Figure 1), the compartment structure of the cabinet body configured to reside within an opening of the tailgate of the vehicle (see paragraph 13 and Lewis, Figure 2.1); and a cabinet door configured to attach the exterior cabinet wall structure to close the one or more compartment cavities in the compartment structure.” (See paragraph 15 and Lewis, Figure 1)
PNG
media_image1.png
663
811
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lewis, Figure 1
PNG
media_image2.png
685
852
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lewis, Figure 2.1
Regarding claim 2, Lewis teaches “The storage cabinet according to claim 1, wherein the compartment structure comprises a detachable shelf that can be installed into a single cavity of the one or more compartment cavities to form two compartment cavities and can be removed from the single cavity.” (Dividers, see paragraph 31)
Regarding claim 19, Lewis teaches “A method for securing a storage cabinet in a tailgate of a vehicle, the method comprising: providing a cabinet body comprising a compartment structure having one or more compartment cavities that open on a face side of the compartment structure within the compartment structure (see paragraph 15 and Lewis, Figure 1) and an exterior cabinet wall structure (see Lewis, Figure 1); inserting the compartment structure into an opening of the tailgate of the vehicle and securing the compartment structure to the tailgate (see paragraph 13 and Lewis, Figure 2.1); securing the exterior cabinet wall structure to the compartment structure to form a front face of the cabinet body; and attaching a cabinet door configured to the exterior cabinet wall structure to close the one or more compartment cavities in the compartment structure.” (See paragraph 15 and Lewis, Figure 1)
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et al. (US 10328860 B2).
Regarding claim 3, Lewis teaches all the limitations of the claims, as applied to claim 1 above, except for “further comprising a cabinet gasket having a compartment aperture therein configured to be securable around the opening in the tailgate of the vehicle into which the compartment structure is inserted.”
However, Lewis teaches a need for a storage apparatus that is sealed from the elements in paragraph 2. Lewis further teaches that “It is contemplated that at least one seal is provided in sealing engagement for providing a weather resistant seal of the assembly 100, e.g., with respect to the shelf 104 against the base 102 when closed.” (See paragraph 35 and Lewis, Figure 2.2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add a sealing gasket, as taught by Lewis, between the back of the apparatus and the opening in the tailgate in order to seal the interface from penetration by debris or the elements contributing to the weather resistance of the apparatus, with a reasonable expectation of success. (See Lewis, Figure 6)
PNG
media_image3.png
685
852
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Lewis, Figure 2.2
PNG
media_image4.png
606
799
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Lewis, Figure 6
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-13 and 20 are objected 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 primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in claims 4-8 is the inclusion in the claim of limitations directed to ” The storage cabinet according to claim 3, further comprising a cabinet bracket comprising feet that are securable to the tailgate against the cabinet gasket and the cabinet bracket being securable to the exterior cabinet wall structure of the cabinet body to hold the exterior cabinet wall structure of the cabinet body in position on the tailgate of the vehicle.” Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claims, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. Lewis teaches “The storage cabinet according to claim 3.” However, prior art fails to teach “further comprising a cabinet bracket comprising feet that are securable to the tailgate against the cabinet gasket and the cabinet bracket being securable to the exterior cabinet wall structure of the cabinet body to hold the exterior cabinet wall structure of the cabinet body in position on the tailgate of the vehicle (see paragraph 29 and Lewis, Figure 7),” rendering claim 4 allowable if rewritten to be independent. Claims 5-8 would become allowable by virtue of dependency on claim 4.
PNG
media_image5.png
483
932
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Lewis, Figure 7
The primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in claims 12 and 13 is the inclusion in the claim of limitations directed to ”The storage cabinet according to claim 1, further comprising one or more attachment arms that extends from the compartment structure of the cabinet body with at least one of the one or more attachment arms being configured to engage a portion of the front face of the exterior cabinet wall structure.” Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claims, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. Lewis teaches “The storage cabinet according to claim 1.” However, prior art fails to teach “further comprising one or more attachment arms that extends from the compartment structure of the cabinet body with at least one of the one or more attachment arms being configured to engage a portion of the front face of the exterior cabinet wall structure (see Lewis, Figure 2.3),” rendering claim 4 allowable if rewritten to be independent. Claim 13 would become allowable by virtue of dependency on claim 12.
PNG
media_image6.png
691
858
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Lewis, Figure 2.3
The primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in claim 20 is the inclusion in the claim of limitations directed to ”The method according to claim 19, wherein the cabinet body further comprises one or more attachment arms that extends from the compartment structure of the cabinet body; and the step of securing the exterior cabinet wall structure to the compartment structure comprises securing the exterior cabinet wall structure to at least one of the one or more attachment arms.” Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claims, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. Lewis teaches “The method according to claim 19.” However, prior art fails to teach “wherein the cabinet body further comprises one or more attachment arms that extends from the compartment structure of the cabinet body; and the step of securing the exterior cabinet wall structure to the compartment structure comprises securing the exterior cabinet wall structure to at least one of the one or more attachment arms (see Lewis, Figure 2.3),” rendering claim 20 allowable if rewritten to be independent.
Claims 14-18 are allowed.
The primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in claims 14-18 is the inclusion in the claim of limitations directed to ” A storage cabinet system for securing in a tailgate of a vehicle, the storage cabinet system comprising: a cabinet gasket having a compartment aperture therein configured to be securable around an opening in the tailgate of the vehicle; a cabinet bracket comprising feet that are securable to the cabinet gasket; a cabinet body comprising a compartment structure having one or more compartment cavities that open on a face side of the compartment structure within the compartment structure and an exterior cabinet wall structure securable to the compartment structure and configured to form at least a front face of the cabinet body, the compartment structure of the cabinet body configured to reside within the opening of the tailgate of the vehicle and the cabinet bracket being securable to the exterior cabinet wall structure of the cabinet body to hold the exterior cabinet wall structure of the cabinet body in position on the tailgate of the vehicle; a cabinet door configured to attach the exterior cabinet wall structure to close the one or more compartment cavities in the compartment structure; and one or more attachment arms that extends from the compartment structure of the cabinet body with at least one of the one or more attachment arms being configured to engage a portion of the front face of the exterior cabinet wall structure.” Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claims, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. Lewis teaches “A storage cabinet system for securing in a tailgate of a vehicle, the storage cabinet system comprising: a cabinet gasket having a compartment aperture therein configured to be securable around an opening in the tailgate of the vehicle (obvious over Lewis, see Lewis, Figure 2.2 and Figure 6), a cabinet body comprising a compartment structure having one or more compartment cavities that open on a face side of the compartment structure within the compartment structure (see paragraph 15 and Lewis, Figure 1) and an exterior cabinet wall structure securable to the compartment structure and configured to form at least a front face of the cabinet body (see Lewis, Figure 1), the compartment structure of the cabinet body configured to reside within the opening of the tailgate of the vehicle and the cabinet bracket being securable to the exterior cabinet wall structure of the cabinet body to hold the exterior cabinet wall structure of the cabinet body in position on the tailgate of the vehicle (see paragraph 13 and Lewis, Figure 2.1); a cabinet door configured to attach the exterior cabinet wall structure to close the one or more compartment cavities in the compartment structure.” (See paragraph 15 and Lewis, Figure 1) However, prior art fails to teach “a cabinet bracket comprising feet that are securable to the cabinet gasket (see paragraph 29 and Lewis, Figure 7) and one or more attachment arms that extends from the compartment structure of the cabinet body with at least one of the one or more attachment arms being configured to engage a portion of the front face of the exterior cabinet wall structure (see Lewis, Figure 2.3),” rendering claim 14 allowable. Claims 15-18 are allowable by virtue of dependency on claim 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited references all disclose aftermarket storage cabinets for tailgates.
Gammon et al. (US 6502885 B1) teaches a tailgate storage cabinet similar to Lewis, mentions the inclusion of adhesive backing but not specifically a gasket. Front face around door is more evident but lacks attachment arms.
Rumph (US 12172583 B2) teaches a tailgate storage cabinet for a pickup truck with dividers. Cabinet is not removable from tailgate.
Masih et al. (US 20160121801 A1) teaches a tailgate storage cabinet for a pickup truck. Cabinet is not removable from tailgate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK R CATALANO whose telephone number is (571)270-0470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday, 8 a.m. 5 p.m. ET..
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at (571) 272-5109. 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.
JRC
/VIVEK D KOPPIKAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights