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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 5,855,291 to Ingle in view of US Patent 6,062,146 to Conners.
Regarding claim 1, Ingle discloses an adjustable trunk organizer comprising: a base portion (Fig. 1 – bottom of 12AL, 12AM, 12AR) configured to rest on a vehicle trunk floor; a plurality of interconnected side panels (12AL, 12AM, 12AR) extending upwardly from the base portion, wherein at least two opposing side panels (12AL, 12AR) are adjustable in length (via extension of 12BL, 12BR); an adjustment mechanism (telescoping interface of 12BL/12BR within 12AL/12AR) coupled to the adjustable side panels, allowing expansion or contraction of the side panels to accommodate varying cargo sizes (Fig. 1). Ingle fails to disclose a locking mechanism. However, Conners discloses a telescoping connection that includes a locking mechanism (friction of interfacing portions) to lock the telescoping members in place (Col. 4, lines 33-34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have designed the telescoping sides to include friction because it would keep the members in a fixed relation, as taught by Conners (Col. 4, lines 33-34). In the combination, the locking mechanism is integrated with the adjustment mechanism and is configured to secure the adjustable side panels in a selected position; and wherein the locking mechanism is operable to maintain the selected position of the adjustable side panels during vehicle transit, thereby preventing unwanted movement of cargo within the organizer.
Regarding claim 2, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein the locking mechanism is a friction lock (Conners) configured to secure the adjustable side panels in the desired position after adjustment.
Regarding claim 3, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein the locking mechanism further comprises an automatic slide lock mechanism (friction lock – Conners) that allows the adjustable side panels to lock into place after being adjusted without requiring manual locking by the user.
Regarding claim 5, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein the base portion and side panels are foldable for compact storage when not in use (Ingle Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ingle and Conners, further in view of US Patent 10,576,870 to Brackens.
Regarding claim 4, the combination from claim 1 fails to disclose a divider. However, Brackens discloses a cargo organizer including a removable divider (255) configured to create separate compartments within the organizer (Fig. 01). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included a removable divider in the combination because it would allow for creating subcompartments, as taught by Brackens (Col. 4, lines 24-31).
Claim(s) 6-10 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ingle and Conners, further in view of US Patent 5,031,769 to Shea.
Regarding claim 6, the combination from claim 1 fails to disclose a grip. However, Shea discloses a cargo organizer including a grip material or design (30) on the bottom surface of the base portion to prevent sliding within the vehicle trunk (Figs. 1, 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included a grip design on the bottom surface of the base portion in the combination to prevent movement of the organizer, as taught by Shea (“anti-skid fingers 30”).
Regarding claim 7, the combination from claim 6 discloses wherein the base portion comprises a jagged edge pattern (30 – Shea) to enhance grip on the vehicle trunk floor.
Regarding claim 8, Ingle discloses a method of organizing cargo in a vehicle trunk, comprising: providing an adjustable trunk organizer having a base portion (Ingle Fig. 1 – bottom of 12AL, 12AM, 12AR) and a plurality of interconnected side panels (Ingle – 12AL, 12AM, 12AR) extending upwardly from the base portion, wherein at least two opposing side panels (Ingle – 12AL, 12AR) are adjustable in length (Ingle – via extension of 12BL, 12BR); adjusting the length of the adjustable side panels to accommodate a specific cargo size (Ingle Fig. 3); and loading cargo into the adjusted trunk organizer (Fig. 3), wherein the secured side panels prevent unwanted movement of the cargo during vehicle transit (Fig. 3). Ingle fails to explicitly disclose placing the organizer on a trunk floor. However, Shea discloses using a cargo organizer in the trunk of an automobile (Col. 1, lines 18-22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used the cargo organizer from Ingle in the trunk of an automobile because the modification only involves choosing from a finite number of predictable locations within an automobile to position a cargo organizer. Ingle fails to disclose a locking mechanism. However, Conners discloses a telescoping connection that includes a locking mechanism (friction of interfacing portions) to lock the telescoping members in place (Col. 4, lines 33-34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have designed the telescoping sides to include friction because it would keep the members in a fixed relation, as taught by Conners (Col. 4, lines 33-34). The combination discloses engaging a locking mechanism to secure the adjustable side panels in a selected position (when the side panels are positioned, the friction locks them in place).
Regarding claim 9, the combination from claim 8 discloses wherein engaging the locking mechanism comprises manipulating a friction lock (moving the side panels to a desired position and then releasing them so the friction holds them – Ingle/Conners) to secure the adjustable side panels in the desired position after adjustment.
Regarding claim 10, the combination from claim 8 discloses wherein engaging the locking mechanism comprises allowing an automatic slide lock mechanism (friction lock – Conners) to lock the adjustable side panels into place after adjustment without requiring manual locking by the user.
Regarding claim 12, the combination from claim 8 discloses folding the base portion and side panels for compact storage when the trunk organizer is not in use (Ingle Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, the combination from claim 8 fails to disclose a grip. However, Shea discloses a cargo organizer including positioning the organizer such that a grip material or design (30) on the bottom surface of the base portion prevents sliding within the vehicle (Figs. 1, 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included a grip design on the bottom surface of the base portion in the combination to prevent movement of the organizer, as taught by Shea (“anti-skid fingers 30”).
Regarding claim 14, the combination from claim 13 discloses wherein the base portion comprises a jagged edge pattern (30 – Shea), and wherein placing the adjustable trunk organizer on the vehicle trunk floor includes positioning the organizer such that the jagged edge pattern enhances grip on the vehicle trunk floor (Shea Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ingle, Conners and Shea, further in view of Brackens.
Regarding claim 11, the combination from claim 8 fails to disclose a divider. However, Brackens discloses a cargo organizer including inserting a removable divider (255) into the trunk organizer to create separate compartments within the organizer (Fig. 01). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included a removable divider in the combination because it would allow for creating subcompartments, as taught by Brackens (Col. 4, lines 24-31).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references disclose configurations similar to that disclosed by applicant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT T MCNURLEN whose telephone number is (313)446-4898. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at 571-272-4544. 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.
/SCOTT T MCNURLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734