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 .
Note on Amendment Practice
Applicant is requested to ensure that the mark-ups in amendments to the application are printed in black ink only. The pre-amendment to the claims filed on 9/5/2024 appears to show changes using a different color or a gray color. In the patent application viewing software used at the USPTO (which only depicts black and white) the changes made to the claims are almost illegible due to the lightness of the text.
Claim Interpretation
It is noted that claim 2 does not positively recite any additional structure. Instead, Applicant recites that the opening “can be” closed by a surface element. This is interpreted as a statement of intended use and does not actually require a surface element.
Similarly, since claim 3 is only directed to further limiting the surface element, claim 3 is also interpreted as an intended use statement and requires no additional structure of the claimed invention.
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 1-13 are 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.
In claim 1, lines 1-2, the phrase, “based upon a vehicle concept relating to a scooter-like vehicle with or without track width” is vague and indefinite. It is not clear what structure, if any, is required by this language. For purposes of expediting examination, this language will be interpreted as not requiring any structure.
In claim 1, line 6, “a storage space” appears that it may be a double recitation of “a storage space” recited in line 3.
In claim 1, line 5-6, Applicant recites, “a footwell comprises a usable area which extends under the seating device and delimits a storage space on the floor side under the seating device.” This language is confusing because Applicant has previously recited “a storage space under a seating device.” It appears that Applicant. It appears that Applicant is attempting to recite that --the footwell comprises a usable area which is continuous with the storage space located under the seating device.-- For purposes of expediting examination, this is how the claim will be interpreted.
In claim 3, line 4, “both directions” has no antecedent basis in the claims and is unclear. In the case where the surface element is pivotable, “both directions” can be understood to be clockwise and counterclockwise. However, in the case where the surface element is “displaceable,” “both directions” has no clear meaning.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kalaivani et al. (WO 2018060907).
With respect to claim 1, Kalaivani et al. disclose a vehicle based upon a vehicle concept relating to a scooter-like vehicle with or without track width, having a vehicle longitudinal axis (in the F-R direction as shown in Fig. 1(a) of Kalaivani et al.), a vehicle frame 105, a footwell (located above floorboard 165 as shown in Figs. 1(a) and 2(d) of Kalaivani et al.), and a storage space s under a seating device 160A/160B (as shown in Figs. 1(a) and 2(c) of Kalaivani et al.),
characterized in that
the footwell comprises a usable area which is continuous with the storage space S located under the seating device (as can be seen in Figs. 1(a) and 1(d) of Kalaivani et al.–see above 112(b) rejection for this interpretation)
wherein the footwell is connected to the storage space S via an opening which has a predetermined opening profile as shown in the below image taken from Fig. 2(c) of Kalaivani et al.:
[AltContent: textbox (opening with predetermined opening profile)][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
327
342
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Kalaivani et al. disclose that the opening can be closed by a surface element 215 (as shown above).
With respect to claim 3, Kalaivani et al. disclose that the surface element is attached to the vehicle frame or to the seating device 160A/160B (via the storage device 200) so as to be displaceable or pivotable in both directions (in the F and R directions, for example) between an open position (as shown in Fig. 2(c) of Kalaivani et al. and a closed position as show in Fig. 2(a) of Kalaivani et al.).
With respect to claim 7, Kalaivani et al. disclose that the storage space S has a spatial profile(at least at the bottom of the storage space S) that corresponds to the opening profile (when considering the opening profile to be the profile seen from above in the Dw direction.
With respect to claim 9, Kalaivani et al. disclose that the usable area extends in a single horizontal plane (as shown in Fig. 1(a) of Kalaivani et al.), such that loading can be carried out from the footwell through the opening into the storage space S in one plane.
With respect to claim 12, Kalaivani et al. disclose that the seating device 160A/160B comprises two seats (“a rider seat 160A, and a pillion seat 160B,” Kalaivani et al., paragraph [0052]).
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.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalaivani et al. (WO 2018060907).
With respect to claims 4-6, Kalaivani et al. disclose the claimed vehicle except that they are silent on the dimensions of the height, width of the opening profile, and the length of the usable area. However, It has been held that a mere change in size does not patentably distinguish over the prior art.
In re Rose , 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package “of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck” where held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) (“mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.” 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
In this case, the claimed invention does not perform differently than the prior art due to the recited dimensions. Both the claimed invention and the prior art are capable of storing items having a height, width, and length in the storage space that project out into the usable area.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalaivani et al. (WO 2018060907), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Chappell (US 1,237,750).
With respect to claim 8, Kalaivani et al. discloses the claimed vehicle except for the surface element being selected from the group of sliding doors, swing doors, rolling door, or flaps. However, Chappell teaches a similar storage space under a vehicle seat 2 which is a swing door 9 (as shown in Fig. 4 of Chappell).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Chappell with the vehicle disclosed by Kalaivani et al. for the advantage of a surface element that is permanently fixed to the vehicle thus eliminating the chance of the surface element getting misplaced.
Claims 10-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalaivani et al. (WO 2018060907), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kashiwai et al. (US 2022/0278410).
With respect to claim 10, Kalaivani et al. disclose the claimed vehicle except for the usable area comprising at least one running board for feet. However, Kashiwai et al. teach a similar vehicle including a usable area (located above cover 51) with at least one running board 224 (as shown in Figs. 1A and 8 of Kashiwai et al.).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Kashiwai et al. with the vehicle disclosed by Kalaivani et al. for the advantage of providing a convenient resting area for a user’s entire foot.
With respect to claim 11, Kashiwai et al. disclose that the usable area comprises at least two running boards 224 for feet, which are arranged on both sides of the vehicle longitudinal axis as shown in Fig. 1A of Kashiwai et al.
With respect to claim 13, Kalaivani et al. disclose the claimed vehicle except for the functional space for accommodating a batter and vehicle electronics formed below the usable area. However, Kashiwai et al. teach a similar vehicle including a functional space SP for accommodating a battery and vehicle electronics formed below the usable area (as shown in Fig. 8 of Kashiwai et al.).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Kashiwai et al. with the vehicle disclosed by Kalaivani et al. for the advantage of an additional battery to provide longer usable vehicle life per charge.
Alternatively, it 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to replace the functional space for accommodating a battery disclosed by Kalaivani et al. with the functional space taught by Kashiwai et al. for removing the battery from under the seat as disclosed by Kalaivani et al. thus freeing up more storage space under the seating device 160A/160B for additional or larger items.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rowland et al. and Mueller et al. are cited to show other examples of storage spaces located under seating devices in communication with a footwell usable area.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J COLILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-2157. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 4:00.
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5500. 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.
/Daniel J Colilla/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights