DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The claim recites having a lower portion volume which is accessible when the upper portion is in the lowered position. Applicant’s paragraph [0025] states: “When the upper portion 310 is in the raised position, the lower portion volume is accessible by the area between the side surfaces 314a, 314b extending from the top surface 312. The lower portion volume may also be accessed by the area below the side surface 314b and between the side surfaces 324a, 324b extending from the bottom surface 322. Such a configuration allows a passenger to access the storage area of the console assembly 300 from various positions. Further, when the upper portion 310 is in the lowered position and the side surfaces 314a, 314b, 324a, 324b form the perimeter of a box, any items stored in the storage area may be contained, preventing the items from shifting out of the console assembly 310…”
One of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the statement that the storage area is contained when upper portion 310 is lowered, especially in contrast with statements that the volume is accessible when upper portion 310 is raised, as clearly teaching that the lower volume is inaccessible when the upper portion is lowered. Furthermore, figures 3A and 3B further confirm this interpretation, where figure 3B shows surfaces 314 and 324 forming the containment box, and there being no other apparent way to access the volume.
Because Applicant has clearly instructed those of ordinary skill in the art to construct a device with inaccessible storage space when the upper portion is lowered, it would necessarily require undue experimentation to discover a console with a storage volume that is simultaneously accessible and inaccessible in the lowered state, where such simultaneous states of irreconcilable dichotomies are typically only found at quantum length scales.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, it appears from Applicant’s disclosure that Applicant was in possession of a console where the lower portion volume is accessible only when the upper portion is in the raised position. It therefore would not be clear to one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant was in possession of the device as set forth in claim 20 at the time of filing.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the lower portion volume being accessible when the upper portion is in the raised position or in the lowered position must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). See related §112(b) rejection above. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1−3, 6−8, 11−12, 15−16, and 18 are rejected under 35 USC §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 5,845,965 to Heath et al. (“Heath”).
Regarding claim 1, Heath teaches a console assembly comprising:
an upper portion (storage compartment 82) comprising a top surface (lid 24), at least two side surfaces extending from the top surface (such as two side surfaces extending downward in fig. 5), and an upper portion volume (volume of usable compartment space as seen in figs. 3 and 9); and
a lower portion (storage well 70) comprising a bottom surface (storage well bottom 72), at least two side surfaces extending from the bottom surface (sides 74), and a lower portion volume, wherein the lower portion volume is smaller than the upper portion volume (where fig. 9 shows the relative volumes, with storage compartment 82 having a greater volume that the volume of the lower portion, which is represented as the volume between storage bin bottom 78 and storage well bottom 72 in fig. 9);
wherein the upper portion is configured to move between a raised position (dashed representation in fig. 9) and a lowered position (solid line representation in fig. 9).
Regarding claim 2, Heath teaches that the upper portion further comprises a locking mechanism (col. 4 lines 40−50, where the locking mechanism is the “catch member” of telescoping member 88 that “interacts with incremental openings or slots” in sleeve 92), the locking mechanism being configured to engage when the upper portion is in the raised position or in the lowered position (col. 4 lines 40−50).
Regarding claim 3, Heath teaches that the top surface of the upper portion comprises a padded surface (where one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the armrest as being padded as known in the art).
Regarding claim 6, Heath teaches that the upper portion is further configured to rest at a plurality of positions between the raised position and the lowered position (col. 4 lines 40−50).
Regarding claim 7, Heath teaches a telescoping slide assembly (telescoping members 88) coupled to the upper portion and the lower portion.
Regarding claim 8, Heath teaches an electronic motor system, the electronic motor system being configured to move the upper portion between the raised position and the lower position (col. 4 lines 40−42, where one of ordinary skill would understand that such telescopic members being pneumatically or hydraulically operated would include electronic controls to actuate the members as is known in the art).
Regarding claim 11, Heath teaches a seating assembly comprising:
at least two seats, each seat comprising a seat surface (Abstract); and
a console assembly disposed between the at least two seats (Abstract), the console assembly comprising as discussed above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Heath teaches that when the upper portion is in the raised position, the top surface of the upper portion is positioned above the seat surface (where one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret figs. 1−2 as such).
Regarding claim 15, Heath teaches that the top surface of the upper portion of the console comprises a flat surface, the flat surface configured to be a seating surface when the upper portion is in the lowered position (where one of ordinary skill in the art would consider the padded console lid as being usable as a seat, for example when the car is not in motion).
Regarding claim 16, Heath teaches that the console assembly further comprises at least one of a seatbelt or a car seat restraint (where one of ordinary skill in the art would understand all modern cars as having this feature).
Regarding claim 18, Heath teaches an electronic controller and motor system configured to move the upper portion of the console from the raised position to the lowered position (as discussed above in claims 7−8).
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, 9, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Heath.
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Heath fails to teach that the top surface of the upper portion comprises at least one electronic connection and charging port. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate such a connection and charging port into the top surface, since charging/connection ports are commonplace in the art and such a port would allow passengers to conveniently connect cell phones to the car and allow for charging the phones.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Heath fails to teach a control panel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate into the top surface of the upper console a control panel coupled to the electronic controller and electronic motor system, the control panel comprising at least one button, switch, or dial, since the system of Heath is controlled by the vehicle occupants, and placement of the control panel on the top surface would allow for convenient control of the device of Heath.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 10, and 13−14 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: Heath is considered the nearest prior art. The device of head does not have the lower volume accessible when the upper portion is raised, nor does it have an upper portion aligned with the seat surface when lowered, nor does it have a locking mechanism disposed on one of the two side surfaces of the upper portion. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to modify the prior art, alone or in combination, to arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Kreiner whose telephone number is (571)270-5379. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30am - 4pm 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, Joshua J Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. 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.
/MK/
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights