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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dhillon (US 10,118,559).
Regarding Claims 1 and 15, Dhillon discloses a vehicle including a support member comprised of a first support element 30a comprising a first support strengthening rib 42 (Fig. 2); a second support element 30b comprising a second support strengthening rib (Fig. 2); and a support hinge 36 arranged to hingeably couple the first and second support elements and having a support hinge axis, wherein the support member is hingeable between: a deployed condition in which the first support strengthening rib is substantially coplanar in a first plane with the second support strengthening rib (Fig. 7; laterally located in plane across the vehicle); and a stowed condition in which the first support strengthening rib is spaced from and substantially coplanar in a second plane with the second support strengthening rib (Fig. 4a shows almost collapsed position wherein the ribs are co-planar in a second plane orthogonal to the first cross car plane),wherein the second plane is orthogonal to the first plane.
Regarding Claim 3, the first and second support strengthening ribs 42 each have a rib axis, wherein each rib axis is orthogonal to the support hinge axis (Figs. 5 and 7).
Regarding Claim 4, the first support element 30a comprises a second surface (rear surface) and the first support strengthening rib is arranged at a level of the second surface (Fig. 4a); and the second support element 30b comprises a second surface (rear surface) and the second support strengthening rib is arranged at a level of the second surface, wherein in the stowed condition the second surface of the first support element substantially faces the second surface of the second support element.
Regarding Claim 5, Dhillon discloses the use of barrel style hinges and pins for the hinged connection between support elements 30a, 30b (see Fig. 2 at 36).
Regarding Claims 13 and 14, the support members include a plurality of ribs (Fig. 2).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6-9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (US 10,106,090) in view of Tarrant (US 2008/0185866).
Regarding Claim 1, Ito discloses a vehicle including a support member comprised of a first support element 215b (Fig. 16); a second support element 215a; and a support hinge 117 arranged to hingeably couple the first and second support elements and having a support hinge axis, wherein the support member is hingeable between: a deployed condition in which the first support is substantially coplanar in a first plane with the second support (Fig. 17); and a stowed condition in which the first support is spaced from and substantially coplanar in a second plane with the second support (folded all the way down position; Fig. 16 shows partially folded position),wherein the second plane is orthogonal to the first plane. Ito does not appear to disclose the use of ribs. Tarrant discloses a space dividing apparatus 18 with support members 22,24, wherein the support member includes interlocking ribs (Fig. 2) when the device is folded. Before the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the ribs of Tarrant in order to further strengthen the device of Ito without adding unnecessary weight or thickness to the device. The ribs would assist in stiffening the panels without making them thicker across the entire body.
Regarding Claim 6, Ito discloses a first coupling hinge 112a (Fig. 16) suitable for coupling the first support element to a first component 13, the first coupling hinge having a hinge axis arranged at forty-five degrees to the hinge axis of the support hinge 117 (Fig. 17); and a second coupling hinge 112 suitable for coupling the second support element to a second component (coupled to back wall 214), the second coupling hinge having a hinge axis arranged at forty-five degrees to the hinge axis of the support hinge, wherein, in the deployed condition the hinge axis of the first coupling hinge is substantially orthogonal to the hinge axis of the second coupling hinge (Fig. 17); and in the stowed condition the hinge axis of the first coupling hinge is substantially parallel to the hinge axis of the second coupling hinge.
Regarding Claim 7, the first component 13 being a first coupling portion coupled to the first support element through the first coupling hinge 112a, the first coupling portion being suitable for coupling the support member to components of the space dividing apparatus.
Regarding Claim 8, the second component 14 being suitable for coupling the support member to a partition body end of the space dividing apparatus (Fig. 17).
Regarding Claim 9, Dhillon discloses the use of barrel style hinges and pins for the hinged connection between support elements 30a, 30b (see Fig. 2 at 36).
Regarding Claim 12, Ito discloses the use of a biasing member on the hinges to assist in folding (column 12, lines 3-11).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 10 and 11 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: applicant’s use of a first recess portion in the first support element, and an overlap portion in the second support element such that the overlap portion is arranged to locate in the recess portion of the first support element when the support member is in the deployed condition, is novel.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art relates to storage and space dividers for vehicle cargo areas.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON S DANIELS whose telephone number is (571)270-1167. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 am - 5:00 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.
/JASON S DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights