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 .
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 first portion having a length substantially equal to a length of the box side step must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
It appears, from the drawings, that the box step fits within the drawer structure and thus cannot be substantially equal in length.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites “the first portion exhibits a length substantially equal to a length of the box side step”. Claim 3 is indefinite as it is not clear what is actually being claimed. It is unclear how the recited “length” is determined. It would be helpful if there was some reference point which determined the direction of the recited “length”. For instance, if the recited “length” is along the lengthwise direction of the vehicle (i.e. from the front to the rear) then claim 3 does not appear to be supported by the drawings.
Dependent claim 4 does not act to cure the deficiencies of parent claim 3 and is thereby rejected for at least the same rationale.
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 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 of this title, 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 1-2, 12-13, 15-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joshi (US 20210114530) in view of Neag et al. (US 6129401).
Regarding claim 1: Joshi discloses a motor vehicle 20 (Fig. 1; [0009]). Joshi discloses a cargo box 24 including an outer panel (illustrated but not numbered) (Fig. 1; [0009], [0012]). Joshi discloses a box side step (illustrated but not numbered) (Fig. 1). Joshi discloses storage compartment 130, 130a arranged adjacent the box side step and moveable between a closed position and an open position and that the compartment includes a front panel (front of door 130a) facing laterally outward (Fig. 2; [0016] ).
Joshi does not explicitly disclose that the compartment is a drawer, that the drawer includes a drawer front panel and that relative to when the drawer is in the closed position, at least a portion of the drawer front panel is recessed laterally inward of the outer panel. Neag discloses a drawer 12, that the drawer includes a drawer front panel 50 and that relative to when the drawer is in the closed position, at least a portion of the drawer front panel is recessed laterally inward of the outer panel 4 (Figs. 2, 3, 5; col. 3; lines 13-16, col. 4; lines 53-56). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Joshi so that the storage compartment is a drawer, that the drawer includes a drawer front panel and that relative to when the drawer is in the closed position, at least a portion of the drawer front panel is recessed laterally inward of the outer panel as taught by Neag. As both Joshi and Neag are directed to a vehicle storage apparatus, as Joshi is silent regarding a drawer, as drawers are well known for storage compartments in vehicles, and as Neag explicitly discloses a drawer, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a desired shape or design of a storage compartment from a finite selection of vehicle storage compartment configurations (i.e. a compartment with a cover or one with a pull out feature). Such a simple substitution/addition and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results.
Regarding claim 2: Joshi, as modified by Neag, discloses that, relative to when the drawer is in the closed position, a first portion of the drawer front panel is recessed laterally inward of the outer panel, and a second portion of the drawer front panel is substantially flush with the outer panel (Neag – Figs. 5, 6 – at least a part of the top portion of 12 is substantially flush with a portion of 4).
Regarding claim 12: Joshi, as modified by Neag, discloses a lock assembly (Neag – 46) configured to selectively hold the drawer in the closed position (Neag – Fig. 2; col. 4, lines 43-45).
Regarding claim 13: Joshi, as modified by Neag, discloses that in the drawer includes a mechanically or electrically actuated latch (Neag – Fig. 2; col. 4, lines 43-45).
Regarding claim 15: Joshi discloses that the box side step is vertically between a ground surface and the drawer (Joshi – Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 16: Joshi discloses that the box side step is forward of a rear wheel well of the motor vehicle (Joshi – Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 19: Joshi discloses that the motor vehicle is a pickup truck (Joshi – Figs. 1-2).
Claims 6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joshi (US 20210114530) and Neag et al. (US 6129401), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lawrence (US 4917430).
Joshi and Neag disclose the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claim 6: Joshi, as modified by Neag, does not explicitly disclose that the drawer includes a drawer back panel spaced-apart from the drawer front panel by a first drawer side panel, a second drawer side panel, and a drawer bottom panel, and the first and second drawer side panels project from opposite sides of the drawer bottom panel. Lawrence discloses that the drawer includes a drawer back panel spaced-apart from the drawer front panel by a first drawer side panel, a second drawer side panel, and a drawer bottom panel, and the first and second drawer side panels project from opposite sides of the drawer bottom panel (Fig. 1). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Joshi, as modified by Neag, so that that the drawer includes a drawer back panel spaced-apart from the drawer front panel by a first drawer side panel, a second drawer side panel, and a drawer bottom panel, and the first and second drawer side panels project from opposite sides of the drawer bottom panel as taught by Lawrence. As Joshi, Neag, and Lawrence, are directed to a vehicle storage apparatus, as Joshi, as modified by Neag, is silent regarding the recited drawer, as drawers are very well known across the arts, and as Lawrence explicitly teaches a drawer back panel spaced-apart from the drawer front panel by a first drawer side panel, a second drawer side panel, and a drawer bottom panel, and the first and second drawer side panels project from opposite sides of the drawer bottom panel, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a desired shape or design of a storage drawer from a finite selection of vehicle storage drawer configurations (i.e. a compartment with specific sides). Such a simple substitution/addition and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results. Such a simple substitution/addition and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results.
Regarding claim 8: Joshi, as modified by Neag and Lawrence, discloses that the drawer includes first and second slides 47 configured to facilitate sliding of the drawer between the open and closed positions, and the first and second slides are mounted adjacent (i) the first drawer side panel and the second drawer side panel, or (ii) the drawer bottom panel (Lawrence – Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9: Joshi, as modified by Neag and Lawrence, discloses that the drawer includes a divider 69, 70 within a drawer box, and the divider includes at least two compartments (Lawrence – Fig. 10; col. 5, lines 15-21).
Regarding claim 10: Joshi, as modified by Neag and Lawrence, discloses that the divider includes four compartments (Lawrence – Fig. 10; col. 5, lines 15-21).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Neag et al. (US 6129401) in view of Lawrence (US 4917430) and in view of Joshi (US 20210114530).
Neag, Lawrence, and Joshi disclose the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claim 20: Neag discloses a method comprising moving a drawer 12 between a closed position and an open position, that, relative to when the drawer is in the closed position, at least a portion of a drawer front panel 50 is recessed laterally inward of an outer panel 4 of a cargo box of a motor vehicle (Figs. 2, 3, 5; col. 3; lines 13-16, col. 4; lines 53-56).
Neag does not explicitly disclose that the drawer is slidable and thus does not explicitly disclose sliding a drawer between a closed position and an open position. Lawrence discloses sliding a drawer between a closed position and an open position. (see above; Lawrence – Fig. 1). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Neag to slide a drawer between a closed position and an open position as taught by Lawrence. As Neag and Lawrence are directed to a vehicle storage apparatus, as Neag, is silent regarding a sliding drawer, as drawers are very well known across the arts, and as Lawrence explicitly teaches a sliding drawer, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a desired design of a storage drawer from a finite selection of vehicle storage drawer configurations (i.e. sliding or flipping). Such a simple substitution/addition and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results. Such a simple substitution/addition and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results.
Neag, as modified by Lawrence, does not explicitly disclose that the drawer is arranged adjacent a box side step of the motor vehicle. Joshi discloses that a storage compartment 130, 130a can be arranged adjacent a box side step (Joshi – illustrated but not numbered) of the motor vehicle (see above; Joshi – Figs. 1, 2; [0009], [0012], [0016]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Neag, as modified by Lawrence, so that the vehicle can have a storage compartment arranged adjacent to a box side step, as taught by Joshi, thus configuring the drawer of Neag, as modified by Lawrence, to be arranged adjacent a box side step. As Neag, Lawrence, and Joshi are directed to a vehicle storage apparatus, as Neag, as modified by Lawrence, is silent regarding a box side step, as box side steps are very well known in truck arts, and as Josh explicitly positions a storage compartment (Lawrence’s drawer) adjacent to the box side step, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a desired position of a drawer (storage container) from a finite selection of vehicle storage drawer positions (i.e. adjacent to a box side step or elsewhere on the vehicle). Such a simple substitution/addition and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 5, 7, 11, 14, and 17-18 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Motor vehicles having box side steps as well additional storage such as drawers, inside or outside the vehicle, and the additional/required storage structure, supports, and positions on/in the vehicle are very well known in the art. Representative art which appears close to the claimed invention includes Joshi (US 20210114530), Neag et al. (US 6129401), Lawrence (US 4917430), Adsit (US 6328365), Stojkovic et al. (US 20210268965), Scaringe et al. (US 20200062185), Carico (US5895086), Desai et al. (US 12397714), Gilliam et al. (US 9409525), Beasley (US 20150375690), and Kimmet (US 8317252). In general, this art, alone or in combination, discloses various recited features, including but not limited to, a motor vehicle, comprising a cargo box including an outer panel, a box side step, a drawer arranged adjacent the box side step and moveable between a closed position and an open position, that the drawer includes a drawer front panel facing laterally outward, that, relative to when the drawer is in the closed position, at least a portion of the drawer front panel is recessed laterally inward of the outer panel. Thus, upon reviewing these cited publications, and their included references, it appears that the claimed subject matter might teach a generally known concept. However, this art fails to disclose or fairly suggest the specifically recited positional and dimensional relationships of the recited structural components. Specifically, the art does not disclose the detailed positional, dimensional, and attachment relationships of the drawer and the remaining recited vehicle structure and the overall relationship to the vehicle. It could be argued that the individual structure is generally known in the art and thus, could just be assembled to disclose the claimed invention. However, the instant invention clearly and specifically recites structural and positional and dimensional relationships and combinations, which require a greater effort than just cobbling together known structures. Further, the claimed structures are sufficiently detailed to be distinguishable when configured as claimed. The examiner can find no motivation to combine or modify the references which would define a fully functioning apparatus as claimed in the instant application. Thus, it would not have been within routine skill to glean the specifically combined limitations of the instant invention, from the art, without the benefit of hindsight reasoning or extensive experimentation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARAS P BEMKO whose telephone number is (571)270-1830. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 (EDT/EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicole Coy can be reached on 571-272-5405. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Taras P Bemko/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
7/2/2026
Prosecution Insights