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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 11 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 recites “The Vehicle body…” should be corrected to “The vehicle body…”.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the partition wall and the rack unit together are form a self-supporting system" in Applicant’s claim language should be corrected to “the partition wall and the rack unit together provide a self-supporting system.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 9, 10, 13, 18-21, 24, 25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable in view of Andrews et al. (US 20230202350 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Andrews et al. teaches a vehicle body (10, Fig. 1), comprising: a loading space (402, Fig. 1); a driver's cab (210, Fig. 1); and a partition wall (600, Fig. 1) and a rack unit (500, Fig. 24); wherein the loading space (402, Fig. 1) and the driver's cab (210, Fig. 1) are separated from one another (as shown in Fig. 1) by the partition wall (600, Fig. 1), and wherein the rack unit (500, Fig. 1) is arranged in the loading space (402, Fig. 1) and extends adjacently (as shown in Fig. 24, the rack unit is extending near the partition wall of Andrews et al.) to the partition wall (600, Fig. 1), and transversely to a longitudinal axis (22, Fig. 1, Note: the rack unit of Andrews et al., is three dimensional, in Fig. 24 shows the rack unit extends transversely in the longitudinal axis of the vehicle body) of the vehicle body (10, Fig. 1); to the partition wall (600, Fig. 1) and wherein the partition wall (600, Fig. 1) and the rack unit (500, Fig. 1) have a common supporting frame (“frame”, 12, Fig. 1) and the common supporting frame (12) is fixed to at least one pillar (A-pillar 112/B-pillar 114/C-pillar 116, Fig. 1, Para. [0076]) of the vehicle body (10, Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
725
1269
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
770
1130
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Andrews et al. teaches the common supporting frame (12, Fig. 1) is detachably fastened (Para. [0076], frame 12 and pillars are separate components that are assembled to the vehicle body and thus can be disassembled) to the at least one pillar (A-pillar 112/B-pillar 114/C-pillar 116, Fig. 1, Para. [0076]).
Regarding claim 3, Andrews et al. teaches the common supporting frame (12, Fig. 1) is fixed to two pillars of the vehicle body (Para. [0076], “pairs of”, A-pillar 112/B-pillar 114/C-pillar 116, Fig. 1), which are provided on oppositely situated longitudinal sides of the vehicle body (10, Fig. 1). (Note: the pairs of pillars are constructed along the longitudinal sides as the foundation of the vehicle body)
Regarding claim 4, Andrews et al. teaches at least one pillar is a B pillar (114, Fig. 1) of the vehicle body (10, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Andrews et al. teaches the common supporting frame (12, Fig. 1) is a peripheral frame (frame 12, Fig. 1 further includes B-pillars 114 and roof of the vehicle constructs a closed enclosure of the vehicle’s external body).
PNG
media_image3.png
786
1110
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Andrews et al. teaches the common supporting frame (12, Fig. 1) has at least two vertically extending support elements (“tracks”, 502, shown above in Fig. 24), and also an upper horizontally extending support element (“body”, 100, as shown above in Fig. 1) and a lower horizontally extending support element (“floor”, 21, as shown above in Fig. 24).
Regarding claim 13, Andrews et al. teaches a periphery of the common supporting frame (frame 12, Fig. 1 further includes B-pillars 114 and roof of the vehicle constructs a closed enclosure of the vehicle’s external body) has a profile which corresponds at least approximately to an inner periphery of a cross section through an interior space of the vehicle body (10, Fig. 1) in a region between the driver's cab (210, Fig. 1) and the loading space (402, Fig. 1). (Note: the periphery of the common supporting frame of Andrews et al., is the outermost surface of the vehicle. Therefore, contains an interior space to create the loading space separated from the driver’s cab which is the interior space as considered the inner boundary in the vehicle common supporting frame.)
Regarding claim 18, Andrews et al. teaches the at least two vertically extending support elements (502, Fig. 24) are polygonal profiles. (502, as shown in Fig. 24, Para. [0100], protrudes outwardly creating a geometric shape creating a polygonal profile.)
Regarding claim 19, Andrews et al. teaches at least one of the at least two vertically extending support elements (502, Fig. 24) has an airline hole system (504, as shown in Fig. 24) for securing loads (as shown in Fig. 24, Para. [0100])
Regarding claim 20, Andrews et al. teaches the partition wall (600, Fig. 1) and the rack unit (500, Fig. 1) together are form a self-supporting system. (Note: for the purpose of this examination, the B-pillar is considered to support the partition wall and rack unit)
Regarding claim 21, Andrews et al. teaches a vehicle interior fitting (as shown above in Fig. 1, Para. [0078]), comprising: a partition wall (600, as shown above in Fig. 1), which is suitable for separating a loading space (402, as shown above in Fig. 1) and a driver's cab (210, as shown above in Fig. 1) of a motor vehicle at least approximately completely from one another (as shown above in Fig. 1); and a rack unit (500, as shown above in Fig. 24), which extends adjacently (as shown in Fig. 24, the rack unit is extending near the partition wall of Andrews et al.) to the partition wall (600, Fig. 1), wherein the partition wall (600, Fig. 1) and the rack unit (500, Fig. 1) have a common supporting frame (12, Fig. 1, Para. [0076]).
Regarding claim 24, Andrews et al. teaches the common supporting frame (12, Fig. 1) is a peripheral frame (frame 12, Fig. 1 further includes B-pillars 114 and roof of the vehicle constructs a closed enclosure of the vehicle’s external body).
Regarding claim 25, Andrews et al. teaches the common supporting frame (12, Fig. 1) has at least two vertically extending support elements (502, shown in Fig. 24), and also an upper horizontally extending support element (100, Fig. 1) and a lower horizontally extending support element (“floor”, 21, Fig. 24).
Regarding claim 27, Andrews et al. teaches the at least two vertically extending support elements (502, Fig. 24) have polygonal profiles (502, as shown in Fig. 24, Para. [0100], protrudes outwardly creating a geometric shape creating a polygonal profile) and at least one of the at least two vertically extending support elements (502, Fig. 24) has an airline hole system (504, as shown in Fig. 24) for securing loads (as shown in Fig. 24, Para. [0100]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 5-7, 16, 17, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Andrews et al., (US 20230202350 A1) and in further view of Mochizuki et al. (US 20150375705 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Andrews et al. teaches the partition wall (Andrews et al., 600, as shown above in Fig. 1), that separates the loading space (Andrews et al., 402, as shown above in Fig. 1) and the driver's cab (Andrews et al., 210, as shown above in Fig. 1) from one another (Andrews et al., as shown above in Fig. 1); and wherein at least one module (Andrews et al., 514, as shown below in Fig. 24) of the rack unit (Andrews et al., “shelf assembly”, 500, as shown below in Fig. 24) is fixed to the common supporting frame (12, as shown above in Fig. 1) by one of a directly connection or one or more profile elements (Andrews et al., 511/512, Fig. 24, Para. [0102-0103]).
PNG
media_image4.png
748
1130
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, Andrews et al., fails to teach a cladding.
However, Mochizuki et al. teaches a cladding (Mochizuki et al., 5/9, Fig. 1).
Therefore, 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 to construct the common supporting frame and partition wall as taught by Andrews et al. to incorporate a cladding as taught by Mochizuki et al. with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage that the partition wall constructs multiple layers to enhance structural stability protecting interior elements in the loading space to the driver’s section of the vehicle.
PNG
media_image5.png
594
809
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Andrews et al. teaches at least one module (Andrews et al., 514, Fig. 24) is one of a drawer, box, tray, shelf, worktop, wall cladding, wall cabinet, tool cabinet, slotted plate, perforated plate, or receptacle for a toolbox (Andrews et al., “tray”, 514, Fig. 24, Para. [0105]).
Regarding claim 7, Andrews et al. teaches at least one module (Andrews et al., 514, Fig. 24) comprises one of multiple slotted plates, multiple perforated plates, multiple drawers, multiple shelves, multiple boxes, or multiple trays fixed (Andrews et al., “shelf assembly”, Para. [0105]) to the common supporting frame (Andrews et al., 12, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, Andrews et al. teaches the common supporting frame (Andrews et al., 12, Fig. 1) and loading space (Andrews et al., 402, as shown above in Fig. 1).
However, Andrews et al. fails to teach the cladding is formed as an upper cladding part and a lower cladding part being arranged on the common supporting frame such that the upper cladding part at least partially extends further into the loading space than the lower cladding part.
However, Mochizuki et al. teaches the cladding (Mochizuki et al., 5/9, Fig. 1) is formed as an upper cladding part (Mochizuki et al., 5, Fig. 1) and a lower cladding part (Mochizuki et al., 9, Fig. 1) and the upper cladding (Mochizuki et al., 5, Fig. 1) part at least partially extends further into the loading space than the lower cladding part (Mochizuki et al., 9, as shown in Fig. 1).
Therefore, 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 to construct the common supporting frame and loading space as taught by Andrews et al. to incorporate an upper cladding to extend further than the lower cladding as taught by Mochizuki et al. with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage that the common supporting frame secures the upper and lower cladding portion and materials occupying the loading space would protect the lower cladding.
Regarding claim 17, Andrews et al. in regards to claim 1 above, teaches the partition wall structure of the vehicle body.
However, Andrews et al. fails to teach the cladding is made from steel, aluminium, plastic or a composite material.
However, Mochizuki et al. teaches the cladding (Mochizuki, et al., 5/9, Fig. 1) is made from steel, aluminium, plastic or a composite material (Mochizuki et al., “metal”, Para. [0022]).
Therefore, 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 to construct the partition wall structure in regards to claim 1 above as taught by Andrews et al. to incorporate cladding and material of the cladding as taught by Mochizuki et al. with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage that the partition wall is construct multiple layers of higher stiffness material.
Regarding claim 22, Andrews et al. teaches the partition wall (Andrews et al., 600, Fig. 1), that separates the loading space (Andrews et al., 402, Fig. 1) and the driver's cab (Andrews et al., 210, Fig. 1) from one another (Andrews et al., as shown above in Fig. 1), and wherein and at least one module (Andrews et al., 514, Fig. 24) of the rack unit (Andrews et al., “shelf assembly”, 500, Fig. 24) is fixed to the common supporting frame (12, as shown above in Fig. 1) by one of a direct connection or one or more profile elements (Andrews et al., 511/512, Fig. 24, Para. [0102-0103]).
However, Andrews et al., fails to teach a cladding.
However, Mochizuki et al. teaches a cladding (Mochizuki et al., 5/9, Fig. 1).
Therefore, 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 to construct the common supporting frame and partition wall as taught by Andrews et al. to incorporate a cladding as taught by Mochizuki et al. with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage that the partition wall constructs multiple layers to enhance structural stability protecting interior elements in the loading space to the driver’s section of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 23, Andrews et al. teaches the at least one module (Andrews et al., 514, Fig. 24) is one of a drawer, box, tray, shelf, worktop, wall cladding, wall cabinet, tool cabinet, slotted plate, perforated plate, or receptacle for a toolbox. (Andrews et al., “tray”, 514, Fig. 24, Para. [0105])
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Andrews et al., (US 20230202350 A1) and in further view of Ivanov et al. (RU 2658483 C1).
Regarding claim 8, Andrews et al. teaches the common supporting frame (Andrews et al., 12, as shown above in Fig. 1) is fixed to at least one pillar (Andrews et al., 112/114/116, as shown above in Fig. 1) of the vehicle body (Andrews et al., 10, as shown above in Fig. 1).
However, Andrews et al., fails to teach one or more fastening profiles and at least one of the one or more fastening profiles is one of a deformable holder or a damper.
However, Ivanov et al. teaches one or more fastening profiles (Ivanov et al., 17, as shown below in Fig. 5) and at least one of the one or more fastening profiles is one of a deformable holder or a damper (Ivanov et al, 14, as shown below in Fig. 1).
Therefore, 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 to construct the common supporting frame as taught by Andrews et al. to incorporate one or more fastening profiles and at least one of the one or more fastening profiles is one of a deformable holder or a damper by Ivanov et al. with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage to dampen any forces acting on the shelf during motion of the vehicle and thereby protecting the items stored on the shelf.
PNG
media_image6.png
542
889
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
612
888
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Andrews et al. teaches the common supporting frame (Andrews et al., 12, as shown above in Fig. 1) and extending between two B pillars (Andrews et al., 114, Fig. 1).
However, Andrews et al., fails to teach an upper end portion is connected to a roof strut and at least two fastening profiles.
However, Ivanov et al. teaches an upper end portion (Ivanov et al., 15, as shown above in Fig. 5) is connected to a roof strut (Ivanov et al., 16, as shown above in Fig. 5) and at least two fastening profiles (Ivanov et al, 17, as shown above in Fig. 5).
Therefore, 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 to construct the common supporting frame as taught by Andrews et al. to incorporate an upper end portion and at least two fastening profiles by Ivanov et al. with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage to protect the items stored on the shelf from any forces acting on the shelf during motion of the vehicle.
Claims 11, 12, 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Andrews et al., (US 20230202350 A1) and in further view of Squyres et al. (US 20021012372 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Andrews et al. teaches the common supporting frame (Andrews et al., 12, as shown above in Fig. 1), an upper support element (Andrews et al., 100, as shown above in Fig. 1) and a lower support element (Andrews et al., “floor”, 21, as shown above in Fig. 24).
However, Andrews et al., fails to teach at least one horizontally extending crossbeam.
However, Squyres et al. teaches at least one horizontally extending crossbeam (Squyres et al., 100, “foldable deck”, Fig. 1a, note: a foldable deck can function with the same stiffness and strength as a crossbeam which can also extend between the upper and lower support element in combination with Andrews et al.).
Therefore, 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 to construct the common supporting frame as taught by Andrews et al. to construct at least one horizontally extending crossbeam as taught by Squyres et al. with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage that the common supporting frame is more secure utilizing the horizontally extending crossbeam.
PNG
media_image8.png
653
664
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Andrews et al. teaches the common supporting frame (Andrews et al., 12, Fig. 1).
However, Andrews et al., fails to teach the at least one horizontally extending crossbeam extends between an upper third portion.
However, Squyres et al. teaches the at least one horizontally extending crossbeam (Squyres et al., 100, Fig. 1a) extends between an upper third portion (Squyres, as shown in Fig. 1a).
Therefore, 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 to construct the common supporting frame as taught by Andrews et al. to construct at least one horizontally extending crossbeam as taught by Squyres et al. with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage that the common supporting frame is more secure utilizing the horizontally extending crossbeam.
PNG
media_image9.png
653
694
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 26, Andrews et al. teaches the common supporting frame (Andrews et al., 12, Fig. 1), an upper support element (Andrews et al., 100, as shown above in Fig. 1) and a lower support element (Andrews et al., “floor”, 21, as shown above in Fig. 24).
However, Andrews et al., fails to teach at least one horizontally extending crossbeam and the at least one horizontally extending crossbeam extending across an upper third of a height.
However, Squyres et al. at least one horizontally extending crossbeam (Squyres et al., 100, Fig. 1a) extends between an upper third portion (Squyres, as shown in Fig. 1a).
Therefore, 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 to construct the common supporting frame as taught by Andrews et al. to construct at least one horizontally extending crossbeam as taught by Squyres et al. with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage that the common supporting frame is more secure utilizing the horizontally extending crossbeam between an upper third portion.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 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:
In claim 14, “the common supporting frame being detachably connected in a region of its lower end to the B pillar via one or more of fastening profiles” is not taught in the prior art. For example, Andrews et al. teaches a common supporting frame and B-pillars. It would not be obvious to incorporate the common supporting frame being detachably connected in a regio of its lower end to the B-pillar via one or more of fastening profiles.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Navarro et al. (US 20190126836 A1) teaches a cargo shelf storage system in the rear storage area of the vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alma D Schuster whose telephone number is (571)272-8938. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8:30am-6:30pm and Fri 7am-11am.
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 R 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 210-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Alma D. Schuster/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights