Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/30/26 is noted. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the examiner is considering the information disclosure statement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 1, 21-24, 31, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Robillard et al. (US 2020/0331405 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Robillard discloses a storage system for a recreational vehicle (recreational vehicle not being claimed in combination due to the functional language “for”), the recreational vehicle comprising: a frame (20); a cowling (90) connected to the frame; a straddle seat (40) connected to the frame; a first wheel well located forward from the straddle seat; a second wheel well located rearward from the straddle seat (see Figures); and a steering assembly (80) located forward from the straddle seat, the steering assembly comprising a steering console (see Figures – though recreational vehicle still not being claimed in combination due to the functional preamble language “for”); the storage system comprising: a drop-down space (97 in Figure 8 or 1098a in Figure 17) defined by a plurality of walls and a floor (see Figures 8 and 17), the floor being configured to be located rearward of the straddle seat (straddle seat still not being claimed in combination due to the functional langue “configured to be located”) and vertically below an uppermost surface of the straddle seat (see Figures 8 and 17); and at least one coupling mechanism (200 in Figure 8 or 1200 in Figure 17) configured to releasably couple a first accessory thereto (first accessory not currently being claimed in combination due to the functional language “configured to”), the plurality of walls comprising a front wall configured to be located vertically below and longitudinally adjacent a rear end of the straddle seat (see Figures 8 and 17), and the at least one coupling mechanism being located in the drop-down space (see Figures 8 and 17).
Regarding claim 21, Robillard discloses the storage system of claim 1, wherein: the plurality of walls defining the drop-down space comprises a first side wall and a second side wall facing the first side wall; the first side wall is spaced from the second side wall in a first lateral direction (see Figures 8 and 17). The vehicle is still not being claimed in combination due to the preamble and functional language of claim 1 from which this claim depends. As such, the remaining limitation “the vehicle comprises a fuel cap spaced laterally from the straddle seat on a first lateral side; the first side wall is located on the first lateral side relative to the second side wall; and the first side wall is located laterally outwards from the fuel cap” does nothing more than require the claimed walls be capable of use on a vehicle with a fuel cap as claimed.
Regarding claim 22, Robillard discloses the storage system of claim 1, further comprising an adapter (100 or 1023) removably attachable to at least one of the cowling and the frame of the vehicle (cowling and frame still not being claimed in combination).
Regarding claim 23, Robillard discloses the storage system of claim 22, wherein the plurality of walls and the floor are defined by the vehicle. The walls are part of the receptacle and the receptacle can be considered part of the vehicle. This claim requires the vehicle claimed in combination.
Regarding claim 24, Robillard discloses the storage system of claim 22, wherein the adapter (1023) is configured to surround a periphery of the drop-down space above the plurality of walls (see Figure 17).
Regarding claim 31, Robillard discloses the storage system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of walls comprises a front wall configured to be aligned with front lights of the vehicle in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle. The vehicle is still not being claimed in combination due to the preamble and functional language of claim 1 from which this claim depends. As such, the recitation of front lights in this claim does nothing more than require the claimed walls be capable of use on a vehicle with a front lights as only functionally claimed.
Regarding claim 33, Robillard discloses an all-terrain vehicle (10) comprising the storage system of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 14, 29, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robillard et al. (US 2020/0331405 A1) in view of Labbe et al. (US 2017/0174145 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Robillard discloses a storage system for a recreational vehicle (recreational vehicle not being claimed in combination due to the functional language “for”), the recreational vehicle comprising: a frame (20); a cowling (90) connected to the frame; a straddle seat (40) connected to the frame; a first wheel well located forward from the straddle seat (see Figures); a second wheel well located rearward from the straddle seat (see Figures); and a steering assembly (80) located forward from the straddle seat, the steering assembly comprising a steering console (see Figures – though recreational vehicle still not being claimed in combination due to the functional preamble language “for”); the storage system comprising: a drop-down space (97a) defined by a plurality of walls and a floor (see Figure 8) configured to be located vertically below an uppermost surface of the straddle seat (see Figure 8); a first storage device (400); and at least one coupling mechanism (200) configured to releasably couple the first storage device thereto, the at least one coupling mechanism being located in the drop-down space (see Figure 8), the first storage device being configured to occupy at least part of the drop-down space when the first storage device is coupled to the at least one coupling mechanism (when latches 474 engage apertures 200). Robillard fails to disclose a second storage device being releasably connectable with the vehicle atop the first storage device. Labbe teaches that it was already known in the art to stack a second storage device (100) on top of a first storage device (200). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have stacked a second storage container on top of the Robillard first storage container in the manner taught by Labbe, the motivation being to allow the user to transport more gear.
Regarding claim 29, Robillard discloses the storage system of claim 22, wherein: the first accessory is a first storage device; the first storage device is configured to occupy at least part of the drop-down space with the first accessory coupled to the at least one coupling mechanism.
Robillard fails to disclose the storage system comprises a second storage device and the second storage device is releasably connectable with the vehicle atop the first storage device. Labbe teaches that it was already known in the art to stack a second storage device (100) on top of a first storage device (200). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have stacked a second storage container on top of the Robillard first storage container in the manner taught by Labbe, the motivation being to allow the user to transport more gear.
Regarding claim 30, Robillard as modified above would include the storage system of claim 29, wherein: the second storage device is releasably connectable to at least one of the first storage device and the adapter (to the first storage device, as taught by Labbe); the second storage device is configured to conceal (at least from top view) the first storage device with the first storage device coupled to the at least one coupling mechanism and the second storage device releasably connected with at least one of the first storage device and the adapter.
8. Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robillard et al. (US 2020/0331405 A1).
Regarding claim 32, Robillard discloses the storage system of claim 1, wherein: the drop-down space is a first drop-down space; the at least one coupling mechanism is a first at least one coupling mechanism. Robillard fails to disclose a second drop-down space defined by a second plurality of walls and a second floor, the second floor being configured to be located forward of the straddle seat and below an uppermost surface of the straddle seat of the vehicle (neither the straddle seat nor vehicle currently being claimed in combination); and at least one second coupling mechanism configured to releasably couple a second accessory thereto, the at least one second coupling mechanism being located in the second drop-down space. Robillard does disclose a second storage container (100) similarly secured at the front of the vehicle with a second storage space (96a) but the second storage container is secured atop a frame member (20c/20d) instead of to a second coupling mechanism within the second drop-down space. It is also not clear if the second storage space (96a) has walls and a floor or not. Figure 8 shows only the frame view with the body of the vehicle missing (where the walls and floor may exist) and Figure 1 shows the front end of the vehicle body but the storage space (96a) isn’t visible. Assuming there are no walls and floor in the front storage receptacle, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have duplicated the design of the rear receptacle (97) and provided the front receptacle (96a) with side walls and a floor and to have placed the second coupling mechanism within the front receptacle. The result of this modification is still a Robillard vehicle having front and rear storage spaces and storage containers secured using Robillard’s own designs. By having the same design as the rear receptacle, a user could use the front receptacle, now with walls and a floor, to store items even without the second storage container attached thereto.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 18 and 34-37 are allowed.
10. Claims 25-28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant’s arguments filed 6/30/26 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection necessitated by the most recent claim amendments.
Conclusion
12. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN MATTHEW LARSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8649. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-3pm. 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.
/JUSTIN M LARSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734 8/27/26
Prosecution Insights