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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8 and 14-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 and 13-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12090894; and claims 1-5 and 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 11760230. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims listed above in the instant application are generic to all that is recited in the conflicting claims from the two published patents. New languages used in the instant application claims include “vehicle body” and partition “at least partially” separating. The two published patent claims recite limitations including chassis, cab, and cargo body, all of which are consider vehicle body; and “at least partially” makes the limitation broader or more generic. In other words, claims 1-6 and 13-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12090894 and claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 11760230 fully encompass the subject matter of claims 1-8 and 14-19 in the instant application. Since it has been held that the generic invention is anticipated by the species, claims 1-8 and 14-19 are not patentably distinct from the respective mentioned claims of U.S. Patent No. 12090894 and U.S. Patent No. 11760230. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed Cir. 1993).
Instant application
U.S. Patent No. 12090894
U.S. Patent No. 11760230
Claim 1
New claim language:
Vehicle body
partition “at least partially” separating
Claim 1 – same limitations other than the following new languages.
Teaches the new claim languages:
vehicle body (chassis, cab, and cargo body);
partition “at least partially” separating (partition separating).
Claim 1 – same limitations other than the following new languages.
Teaches the new claim languages:
vehicle body (chassis, cab, and cargo body);
partition “at least partially” separating (partition separating).
Claim 2
Claim 2
Claim 1
Claim 3
Claim 3
Claim 1
Claim 4
Claim 4
Claim 1
Claim 5
Claim 5
Claim 2
Claim 6
Claim 6
Claim 7
Claim 6
Claim 8
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 14
Claim 13
Claim 15
Claim 13
Claim 16
Claim 14
Claim 17
Claim 15
Claim 18
Claim 16
Claim 19
Claim 17
Claims 9-13 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12090894 in view of Froutzis et al. (US 4595164 A).
Obviousness type nonstatutory double patenting
Claims
U.S. Patent No. 12090894
U.S. Patent No. 11760230
Claim 9
Claim 12 + Froutzis
Claim 10
Claim 12 + Froutzis
Claim 11
Claim 8 + Froutzis
Claim 12
Claim 10 + Froutzis
Claim 13
Claim 11 + Froutzis
Claim 20
Claim 17
Claim 1
Regarding claim 9, U.S. Patent No. 12090894 claim 12 discloses a vehicle comprising: a body (same limitation in base claim 7) defining a longitudinal axis (a vehicle body will inherently have a longitudinal axis), the body including: a partition separating an interior of the body into a cab area and a cargo area (same limitation in base claim 7); and a floor defining a first interface within the cab area and a second interface within the cargo area (same limitation in base claim 7), wherein each of the first interface and the second interface are discrete and not connected (same limitation in base claim 7), and wherein each of the first interface and the second interface includes one or more slots (claim 12, a pair of slots; also taught by Froutzis below); and a seating unit including a frame assembly having one or more legs that engage with the first interface and the second interface such that the seating unit is selectively repositionable between (a) a first position forward of the partition and within the cab area and (b) a second position rearward of the partition and within the cargo area (same limitation in base claim 7).
U.S. Patent No. 12090894 claim 12 fails to disclose slots extending parallel with the longitudinal axis; and legs that at least partially extend through the one or more slots.
Froutzis teaches slots (Froutzis, Fig. 1 and 3, slots where leg 16 is located, formed by 20 and 40); and legs that at least partially extend through the one or more slots (Froutzis, Fig. 1 and 3, leg 16 inside the slots).
Froutzis is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle seat with legs and having floor interfaces as U.S. Patent No. 12090894.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle as taught by U.S. Patent No. 12090894 to incorporate the teachings of Froutzis with a reasonable expectation of success and have slots such that the seat legs extend through the slots. Doing so provides a convenient seat mounting mechanism that can be manually operated without additional tools.
U.S. Patent No. 12090894 in view of Froutzis teaches claim 9 except for the slots extending parallel to the longitudinal axis. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the seat and the interface such that the slots extend parallel to the vehicle body’s longitudinal axis, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), see MPEP 2144.04 VI. Doing so allows the occupants to be seated facing the longitudinal direction, which provides comfort and safety.
Regarding claim 10, U.S. Patent No. 12090894 claim 12 discloses a storage rack selectively positionable in the cab area when the seating unit is removed therefrom (same limitation in base claim 7).
Regarding claim 11, U.S. Patent No. 12090894 claim 8 discloses the storage rack is selectively securable to the floor (same limitation in base claim 8).
Regarding claim 12, U.S. Patent No. 12090894 claim 10 discloses the same limitations.
Regarding claim 13, U.S. Patent No. 12090894 claim 11 discloses the same limitations, where Froutzis also teaches threaded apertures (Froutzis, Fig. 3 and Col. 2 line 37) and threaded studs (Froutzis, 50 in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 20, U.S. Patent No. 12090894 claim 17 discloses all the limitations in the base claims 14 and 19 of the instant application as described above, and a longitudinal axis (a vehicle body will inherently have a longitudinal axis).
U.S. Patent No. 12090894 claim 17 fails to disclose the one or more slots extend parallel with the longitudinal axis.
U.S. Patent No. 12090894 discloses claim 20 except for the slots extending parallel to the longitudinal axis. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the seat and the interface such that the slots extend parallel to the vehicle body’s longitudinal axis, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), see MPEP 2144.04 VI. Doing so allows the occupants to be seated facing the longitudinal direction, which provides comfort and safety.
Claim 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11760230.
Regarding claim 20, U.S. Patent No. 11760230 claim 1 discloses all the limitations in the base claims 14 and 19 of the instant application as described above, and a longitudinal axis (a vehicle body will inherently have a longitudinal axis).
U.S. Patent No. 11760230 claim 1 fails to disclose the one or more slots extend parallel with the longitudinal axis.
U.S. Patent No. 11760230 discloses claim 20 except for the slots extending parallel to the longitudinal axis. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the seat and the interface such that the slots extend parallel to the vehicle body’s longitudinal axis, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), see MPEP 2144.04 VI. Doing so allows the occupants to be seated facing the longitudinal direction, which provides comfort and safety.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 14, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corey et al. (US 20050263337) in view of Line et al. (US 20200189498).
Regarding claim 1, Corey discloses a vehicle (Corey, 100 in Fig. 1) comprising: a vehicle body (Corey, Fig. 1) including: a cab portion (Corey, 2 in Fig. 1) having a first floor portion (Corey, Fig. 1, floor to the left of driver’s seat 8); and a cargo body portion (Corey, 50 in Fig. 1) positioned rearward of the cab portion (Corey, Fig. 1, behind cab 2), the cargo body portion including a second floor portion (Corey, Fig. 1, floor of cargo space 50); a partition (Corey, 58 in Fig. 1) at least partially separating the cab portion and the cargo body portion; a seating unit (Corey, paragraph 0029, auxiliary removable seat); a storage rack (Corey, 16 in Fig. 1) selectively positionable in the cab portion when the seating unit is removed therefrom (Corey, position in first position as shown in Fig. 1 and detachable as described in paragraph 0029).
Corey fails to disclose a first pair of slots; a second pair of slots; a frame assembly having a pair of legs that engage with the first pair of slots and the second pair of slots such that the seating unit is selectively repositionable between (a) a first position forward of the partition and within the cab portion and (b) a second position rearward of the partition and within the cargo body portion.
Line teaches a first pair of slots; a second pair of slots (Line, 168 in Fig. 9; and paragraph 0050, “apertures 168 that are defined by the track 24” so there are at least a pair of slot/apertures 168 in a track, and each seat is connected to two tracks 24 as described in paragraph 49, making it two pairs of slots 168); a frame assembly (Line, 80 in Fig. 2) having a pair of legs (Line, 164 in Fig. 9) that engage with the first pair of slots and the second pair of slots (Line, by lock assembly, paragraph 0050) such that the seating unit is selectively repositionable between (a) a first position forward of the partition and within the cab portion and (b) a second position rearward of the partition and within the cargo body portion (Line, slidable as shown in Fig. 4-5 between two positions).
Line is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle seat and cargo vehicle as Corey.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle as taught by Corey to incorporate the teachings of Line with a reasonable expectation of success and have the seat disclosed by Corey slidable between the two positions such that the mailing tray can be placed in the first position when the seat is in the second position. Doing so provides room for cargo in the cab when needed and allows customized arrangement as desired by users.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Corey in view of Line teaches the vehicle of Claim 1, wherein the seating unit includes: a seat base (Line, 64 in Fig. 2) coupled to the pair of legs; and a seat back (Line, 68 in Fig. 2) coupled to the seat base.
The combination of Corey in view of Line teaches the vehicle of claim 8 except for a seat cushion and a back cushion.
The examiner takes Official Notice that the use of seat and back cushions in seats is old and well known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a vehicle seat, such as that taught by the combination of Corey in view of Line, and install seat and back cushion to the seat, as is old and well known in the art, in order to provide seating comfort to passengers.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Corey in view of Line teaches the vehicle of Claim 3, wherein the seating unit includes a seat belt harness (Corey, 32 in Fig. 6) having: a seat belt buckle (Corey, see annotated Fig. 6) coupled to the seat base; and a seat belt (Corey, see annotated Fig. 6) coupled to the frame assembly at a plurality of points (Corey, three points), the seat belt including a coupler (Corey, see annotated Fig. 6) configured to selectively interface with the seat belt buckle
Corey’s driver seat is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle seats as Corey in view of Line.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle seat as taught by the combination of Corey in view of Line to incorporate the teachings of Corey’s driver seat and have seat belts installed on the passenger seating unit. Doing so ensures safety of the passenger.
PNG
media_image1.png
372
641
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 Annotated Fig. 6 from Corey
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Corey in view of Line teaches the vehicle of Claim 1, wherein the storage rack is selectively securable to the first floor portion (Corey, paragraph 0029, mount to floor and detachable).
Regarding claim 14, Corey discloses a vehicle (Corey, 100 in Fig. 1) comprising: a body (Corey, Fig. 1) having a cab area (Corey, 2 in Fig. 1) and a cargo area (Corey, 50 in Fig. 1), the body including a floor (Corey, Fig. 1, both cargo and cab have floor) within the cab area and within the cargo area; a seating unit (Corey, paragraph 0029, auxiliary removable seat); and a storage rack (Corey, 16 in Fig. 1) selectively positionable in the cab area when the seating unit is removed therefrom (Corey, position in first position as shown in Fig. 1 and detachable as described in paragraph 0029).
Corey fails to disclose a first interface, a second interface, and the seating unit configured to engage with the first interface and the second interface such that the seating unit is selectively repositionable between (a) a first position within the cab area and (b) a second position within the cargo area.
Line teaches a first interface (Line, part of a guide 28 of track 24 in Fig. 2 that would be located at the first position after combination), a second interface (Line, part of a guide 28 of track 24 in Fig. 2 that would be located at the second position after combination), and the seating unit configured to engage with the first interface and the second interface such that the seating unit is selectively repositionable between (a) a first position forward of the partition and within the cab portion and (b) a second position rearward of the partition and within the cargo body portion (Line, slidable as shown in Fig. 4-5 between two positions).
Line is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle seat and cargo vehicle as Corey.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle as taught by Corey to incorporate the teachings of Line with a reasonable expectation of success and have the seat disclosed by Corey slidable between the two positions such that the mailing tray can be placed in the first position when the seat is in the second position. Doing so provides room for cargo in the cab when needed and allows customized arrangement as desired by users.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Corey in view of Line teaches the vehicle of Claim 14, wherein the body includes a partition (Corey, 58 in Fig. 1) positioned to at least partially separate the cab area from the cargo area.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Corey in view of Line teaches the vehicle of Claim 14, wherein each of the first interface and the second interface defines one or more slots (Line, 168 in Fig. 9; and paragraph 0050, “apertures 168 that are defined by the track 24” so there are at least a pair of slot/apertures 168 in a track, and each seat is connected to two tracks 24 as described in paragraph 49, making it two pairs of slots 168) that receive one or more portions of the seating unit.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Corey in view of Line as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hofvander (US 20150034580).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Corey in view of Line teaches the vehicle of Claim 1, but fails to teach end supports; and a plurality of trays extending between the end supports in a stacked arrangement.
Hofvander teaches a pair of end supports (Hofvander, 413 and 405 in Fig. 4); and a plurality of trays extending between the pair of end supports in a stacked arrangement (Hofvander, 401 and 415 in Fig. 4).
Hofvander is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of trays as Corey in view of Line.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle as taught by Corey in view of Line to incorporate the teachings of Hofvander with a reasonable expectation of success and have the multiple trays with end supports. Doing so provides additional storage and further reinforce the stability of the trays.
Claims 6-7 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Corey in view of Line as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Goodbred (US 5741000).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Corey in view of Line teaches the vehicle of Claim 1, wherein each of the first pair of slots and the second pair of slots defines a plurality of apertures (Line, 168 in paragraph 0050) that interface with the pair of legs of the frame assembly to facilitate coupling the seating unit in the first position and the second position (Line, Fig. 9).
The combination of Corey in view of Line fails to teach threaded apertures.
Goodbred teaches threaded apertures (Goodbred, Col. 6 line 51).
The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that “[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
“Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
See MPEP § 2143 for a discussion of the rationales listed above along with examples illustrating how the cited rationales may be used to support a finding of obviousness. See also MPEP § 2144 - § 2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations.
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results: One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that locking assemblies in Line and Goodbred have similar functions. Since both Line and Goodbred teach a locking assembly with pins and apertures, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute one known aperture for another aperture (threaded aperture) with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Doing so adds securing strength and prevents accidental release while still allows disconnection.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Corey in view of Line teaches the vehicle of Claim 1, wherein each of the first pair of slots and the second pair of slots includes a stud (Line, pin in paragraph 0050) that interface with the pair of legs of the frame assembly to facilitate coupling the seating unit in the first position and the second position (Line, Fig. 9).
The combination of Corey in view of Line fails to teach threaded studs.
Goodbred teaches threaded apertures (Goodbred, Col. 6 line 50-51, pins threadedly engaged, therefore the pins are threaded as well).
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results: One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that locking assemblies in Line and Goodbred have similar functions. Since both Line and Goodbred teach a locking assembly with pins and apertures, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute one known pin for another pin (threaded pin) with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Doing so adds securing strength and prevents accidental release while still allows disconnection.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Corey in view of Line teaches the vehicle of Claim 14, wherein each of the first interface and the second interface includes a plurality of apertures (Line, 168 in paragraph 0050).
The combination of Corey in view of Line fails to teach threaded apertures.
Goodbred teaches threaded apertures (Goodbred, Col. 6 line 51).
The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that “[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
“Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
See MPEP § 2143 for a discussion of the rationales listed above along with examples illustrating how the cited rationales may be used to support a finding of obviousness. See also MPEP § 2144 - § 2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations.
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results: One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that locking assemblies in Line and Goodbred have similar functions. Since both Line and Goodbred teach a locking assembly with pins and apertures, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute one known aperture for another aperture (threaded aperture) with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Doing so adds securing strength and prevents accidental release while still allows disconnection.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Corey in view of Line teaches the vehicle of Claim 14, wherein each of the first interface and the second interface includes a stud (Line, pin in paragraph 0050).
The combination of Corey in view of Line fails to teach threaded studs.
Goodbred teaches threaded apertures (Goodbred, Col. 6 line 50-51, pins threadedly engaged, therefore the pins are threaded as well).
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results: One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that locking assemblies in Line and Goodbred have similar functions. Since both Line and Goodbred teach a locking assembly with pins and apertures, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute one known pin for another pin (threaded pin) with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Doing so adds securing strength and prevents accidental release while still allows disconnection.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Corey in view of Line as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Higuchi et al. (US 20180334054 A1).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Corey in view of Line teaches the vehicle of Claim 19, wherein the body defines a longitudinal axis (Corey, Fig. 1, axis in front-rear direction of the vehicle).
The combination of Corey in view of Line fails to teach the one or more slots extend parallel with the longitudinal axis.
Higuchi teaches one or more slots extend parallel with the longitudinal axis (Higuchi, slots 32A in Fig. 3, parallel to the longitudinal axis after combination since Higuchi slots are parallel to the track and tracks of Line are parallel to the vehicle longitudinal axis).
Higuchi is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle seats as Corey in view of Line.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle as taught by Corey in view of Line to incorporate the teachings of Higuchi with a reasonable expectation of success and have the slots extend parallel to the longitudinal axis. Doing so provides increase locking interface contacting area, which increases securing strength and enhances safety, without the need to widen the track.
Claims 9 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashman et al. (US 20230191971 A1) in view of Froutzis et al. (US 4595164 A) and Sailer et al. (US 20120235006 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Ashman discloses a vehicle (Ashman, Fig. 4A) comprising: a body (Ashman, Fig. 4A) defining a longitudinal axis (Ashman, Fig. 4A, axis extending in front-rear direction), the body including: a partition (Ashman, 110A in Fig. 4A) separating an interior (Ashman, Fig. 4A) of the body into a cab area (Ashman, Fig. 4A, front of the partition) and a rear area (Ashman, Fig. 4A, area behind the partition); and a seating unit (Ashman, Fig. 4A).
Ashman fails to disclose a cargo area; a floor defining a first interface within the cab area and a second interface within the cargo area, wherein each of the first interface and the second interface are discrete and not connected, and wherein each of the first interface and the second interface includes one or more slots extending parallel with the longitudinal axis; and a seating unit including a frame assembly having one or more legs that at least partially extend through the one or more slots of the first interface and the second interface such that the seating unit is selectively repositionable between (a) a first position forward of the partition and within the cab area and (b) a second position rearward of the partition and within the cargo area.
Froutzis teaches a floor (Froutzis, 10 in Fig. 3) defining a first interface (Froutzis, Fig. 1, interface between seat leg and the floor) within the cab area and a second interface within the rear area (after combination, seat interface of Froutzis can be used for both seating areas), wherein each of the first interface and the second interface are discrete and not connected (Froutzis, Fig. 1, interface is only below one seat and used for one seat, therefore when used for both seating areas, they will be discrete and not connected), and wherein each of the first interface and the second interface includes one or more slots (Froutzis, Fig. 2-3, slots defined by 42 and 20) extending parallel with the longitudinal axis (same axis as the seats’ facing direction); and a seating unit (Froutzis, Fig. 1) including a frame assembly having one or more legs (Froutzis, 14 and 16 in Fig. 1 and 3) that at least partially extend through the one or more slots (Froutzis, Fig. 3) of the first interface and the second interface such that the seating unit is selectively repositionable between (a) a first position forward of the partition and within the cab area and (b) a second position rearward of the partition and within the rear area (Froutzis, Col. 3 lines 34-41, seat can detach for repositioning, therefore it is capable of repositioning between the front cab area and the rear cargo area after combination).
Froutzis is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle seats as Ashman.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle as taught by Ashman to incorporate the teachings of Froutzis with a reasonable expectation of success and use the seat mounting mechanism of Froutzis. Doing so allows customized seat configuration as desired by users.
Sailer teaches a cargo area (Sailer, Fig. 37, seating area can be used for cargo; also shown in other figures).
Sailer is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle seats and vehicle interior as Ashman in view of Froutzis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle as taught by Ashman in view of Froutzis to incorporate the teachings of Sailer with a reasonable expectation of success and use the seating area also as a cargo area. Doing so allows customized seat configuration as desired by users. Doing so provides additional cargo space in the vehicle when desired.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Ashman in view of Froutzis and Sailer teaches the vehicle of Claim 9, wherein each of the first interface and the second interface includes a plurality of threaded apertures (Froutzis, Fig. 3 and Col. 2 line 37).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Ashman in view of Froutzis and Sailer teaches the vehicle of Claim 12, wherein each of the first interface and the second interface includes a plurality of threaded studs (Froutzis, 50 in Fig. 3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wenwei Zhuo whose telephone number is (571)272-5564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. 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, 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.
/WENWEI ZHUO/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights