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 .
This communication is in response to application No. 18/852,601, filed on 9/30/2024. Claims 11-20 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 11-17 and 19-20 have been rejected as follows. Claim 18 is objected to.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Raffel et al (DE 10 2009 057 169).
Regarding claim 11, Raffel et al discloses a luggage compartment floor (trunk and spare wheel wells) for a motor vehicle, comprising a convexity (trough 1/1’ bulging outward, Fig. 1 & 6), wherein the convexity has at least one side wall (5/5’, Fig. 1 & 6), and the at least one side wall at least in part has a wave shape (3/3’, 6/6’ undulating cross-sections; Fig. 3-5 & 8).
Regarding claim 12, Raffel et al further discloses wherein the least one side wall (5/5’, Fig. 1 & 6) on an end side are contiguous to a base area (2/2’, Fig. 1 & 6).
Regarding claim 13, Raffel et al further discloses wherein the convexity (1/1’, Fig. 1 & 6) comprises a floor element (4/4’, Fig. 1 & 6), and the at least one side wall (5/5’, Fig. 1 & 6) on an end side is contiguous thereto.
Regarding claim 14, Raffel et al further discloses wherein a first of the at least one side wall (5, Fig. 1) which is at a front in the luggage compartment floor longitudinal direction (x), and/or a second (5 opposite wall, Fig. 1) of the at least one side wall which is at a rear in the luggage compartment floor longitudinal direction (x) have/has at least in part a wave shape (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
465
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Raffel et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 14 above, and Raffel et al further discloses wherein the at least one side wall (5, Fig. 1), which at least in part has the wave shape (3, 6; Fig. 1), is planar (see annotated figure above) in a region which is central in a longitudinal direction of the side wall (5, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, Raffel et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 15 above, and Raffel et al further discloses wherein the at least one side wall (5, Fig. 1 & 6), which at least in part has the wave shape (3, 6; Fig. 1 & 6), is mirror-symmetrical (opposite walls are the same).
Regarding claim 17, Raffel et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 16 above, and Raffel et al further discloses wherein wave amplitudes of individual waves (see annotated figure above) of the wave shape differ at least in part (see annotated figure above).
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 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raffel et al (DE 10 2009 057 169) in view of Zhang et al (US 2025/0121890).
Regarding claim 19, Raffel et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 12 above. However, Raffel et al does not expressly disclose at least one reinforcement rib which extends from the convexity (trough 1/1’ bulging outward, Fig. 1 & 6) to the base area (2/2’, Fig. 1 & 6).
Zhang et al teaches a luggage floor with at least one reinforcement rib (165, Fig. 3; para. [0072]) which extends from the convexity (16, 160; Fig. 3) to the base area (162, Fig. 3) in the analogous field of the claimed invention of vehicle trunk structures and compartments.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the compartment floor of Raffel et al to include the reinforcement rib as taught by Zhang et al. Doing so would connect the bulge area to the base area to improve rigidity and load transfer, greatly improving overall strength (para. [0073], lines 10-12).
Regarding claim 20, Raffel et al in view of Zhang et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 19 above, and Zhang et al further discloses wherein the reinforcement rib (165, Fig. 3) extends from an edge (near corners in Fig. 3) on which adjacent side walls (160, Fig. 3) of the at least one side wall bear on one another to the base area (162, Fig. 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is 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: The primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter in claim 18 is the specific wave shape on the side wall to provide transitioning stiffness for the convexity defined by the limitations “a wave amplitude of individual waves of the wave shape decrease in a longitudinal direction of the side wall from one longitudinal end of the at least one side wall in a direction of a center of the at least one side wall.” The closest prior art of Raffel et al (DE 10 2009 057 169) does not disclose this feature. Applicant’s wave amplitude of the individual waves of the wave shape decreases in the side wall longitudinal direction from one longitudinal end of the side wall, i.e. one end of the side wall in the side wall longitudinal direction, in the direction of the center of the side wall. The waves close to the center of the side wall thus have a smaller wave amplitude than the waves close to the longitudinal end. In this arrangement, the tapered waves optimize strength and stiffness by achieving high rigidity at the highly-stressed corners while intentionally allowing flex in the center to absorb impact and prevent failure of the compartment. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bell et al (US Patent No. 5,971,462) discloses a storage system for a vehicle spare tire which includes a weight bearing reinforced cover including a plurality of radial reinforcing members which provides underfloor space without weakening the luggage floor area in a trunk. Ryan et al (US 2017/0305474), Karagitz et al (US Patent No. 7,503,610) and Jacobs et al (US Patent No. 7,040,691) disclose vehicle cargo load floors with compartments having wave shape side walls and reinforcement ribs for stiffening and rigidity. Fujita (US Patent No. 7,097,238) discloses a floor panel including a protrusion portion ensuring rigidity of the floor panel and having a space under the rear side of the protrusion portion available for a fuel tank. Hirakawa (US 2025/0332898) discloses a floor portion (26, Fig. 1) constituting a bottom wall of a luggage compartment with a battery support portion (30) formed on the front side of the floor portion (26). Eggert, Jr (US Patent No. 3,419,303) discloses a luggage deck area (44, 54) with stiffening frame structure (60).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Denise L Esquivel whose telephone number is (703)756-5825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Thursday 7:30 am-5:00 pm, alternate Fridays 7:30 am-4:00 pm.
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.
/D.L.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights