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 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 4-9 and 11 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the first portion and the second portion of the base" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the second portion" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 5, 7-9, and 11 are rejected due to their dependency on the rejected claims 4 and 6.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loisel (US 4969678 A) in view of Spykerman et al. (US 20010020631 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Loisel discloses a vehicle storage system (Loisel, Fig. 3), comprising: a first seating assembly (Loisel, 1 in Fig. 3) having a first rear surface (Loisel, Fig. 3, rear surface of seats 1) and a second seating assembly (Loisel, 2 in Fig. 2-3) having a second rear surface (Loisel, Fig. 2-3, seat back rear surface); a cargo space (Loisel, Fig. 2, space behind rear seats 2) proximate the second seating assembly; a base (Loisel, Fig. 3 and 7, base formed by 17 and 9) extending from the first seating assembly and toward a vehicle liftgate (Loisel, Fig. 7).
Loisel fails to disclose a first partition extending along an edge of the base proximate the first rear surface of the seating assembly, wherein a first storage space is defined at least partially by the first partition and over the second seating assembly; a second partition extending parallel to the first partition and proximate the second seating assembly, wherein a second storage space is at least partially defined by the second partition within the cargo space; a first divider wall extending from the first partition across the first storage space; and a second divider wall extending from the second partition across the second storage space.
Spykerman teaches a first partition (Spykerman, 24 in Fig. 3) extending along an edge (Spykerman, Fig. 1 and 3, one longitudinal edge 16 of base 12) of the base, wherein a first storage space is defined at least partially by the first partition (Spykerman, Fig. 3, storage space within the bin); a first divider wall (Spykerman, 60 in Fig. 3) extending from the first partition across the first storage space.
Spykerman is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle storage system as Loisel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as taught by Loisel to incorporate the teachings of Spykerman with a reasonable expectation of success and install the storage bin of Spykerman in the vehicle interior of Loisel. Doing so provides additional customizable storage means and organizational means when desired.
The combination of Loisel in view of Spykerman fails to teach a second partition extending parallel to the first partition, a second storage space, and a second divider wall extending from the second partition. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a second storage bin system of Spykerman such that there are a second partition, a second storage space, and a second divider, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), MPEP 2144.04 VI. Doing so provides additional customization of the vehicle space and provides more storage space when needed.
The combination of Loisel in view of Spykerman teaches the claimed invention except for the first partition proximate the first rear surface of the seating assembly, the first storage space over the second seating assembly, the second partition proximate the second seating assembly, the second storage space within the cargo space. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange two storage bins of Spykerman into the vehicle interior of Loisel such that one is at the location above the folded rear seats and the other is behind in the cargo space, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), see MPEP 2144.04 VI. Doing so allows maximum space utilization such that the vehicle can fit the two storage bins.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Loisel in view of Spykerman teaches the vehicle storage system of claim 1, wherein the first divider wall extends from the first partition (Spykerman, Fig. 3) between the first seating assembly and the second seating assembly (when the storage is arranged towards the front which is right behind the first seating assembly as shown in Fig. 3 of Loisel) and the second divider wall extends from the second partition between the second seating assembly and the vehicle liftgate (when the second storage is arranged behind the first storage in the cargo space).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Loisel in view of Spykerman teaches the vehicle storage system of claim 3, wherein a third partition (Spykerman, Fig. 3, each storage bin has two partitions, 24 and 22, the third partition can be the other partition in the first storage bin that is arranged at the front above the rear seats as described above in claim 1 rejection) extends along the base adjacent to the cargo space between the first portion and the second portion (Spykerman, Fig. 3, left and right portions of the base) of the base, and wherein the first storage space is defined between the first partition and the third partition.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Loisel in view of Spykerman teaches the vehicle storage system of claim 4, wherein each of the first partition, the second partition, and the third partition extend parallel to one another (when arranged in the same orientation as shown in Fig. 1 of Spykerman, they will all be extending in the vehicle transversal direction), and wherein the first partition extends from proximate the first seating assembly (when arranged at the front behind the first seating assembly) to adjacent a headliner (Loisel, Fig. 3, after placing the storage of Spykerman in the vehicle interior, the partition will be below and adjacent the headliner), and wherein the second and third partitions extend from proximate the second seating assembly (since they are behind the first partition) to adjacent the headliner (after combination with Spykerman, the partition will extend upward toward the headliner and be adjacent to the headliner).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Loisel in view of Spykerman teaches the vehicle storage system of claim 3, further comprising: a first sidewall and a second sidewall (Spykerman, 30 and 40 in Fig. 3) extending from opposing ends of the second partition, and wherein the first sidewall and the second sidewall extend over the second portion (Spykerman, can be the peripheral portion) of the base.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Loisel in view of Spykerman teaches the vehicle storage system of claim 6, wherein the base includes a first side edge and a second side edge (Spykerman, 18 and 20 in Fig. 1), and wherein the first sidewall extends along the first side edge from a first one of the opposing ends of the second partition and the second sidewall extends along the second side edge from a second one of the opposing ends of the second partition (Spykerman, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Loisel in view of Spykerman teaches the vehicle storage system of claim 6, wherein the second divider wall is positioned between the first sidewall and the second sidewall (Spykerman, Fig. 3, divider wall in between the two side walls), and wherein the second divider wall is parallel to and spaced apart from the first sidewall and the second sidewall (Spykerman, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Loisel in view of Spykerman teaches the vehicle storage system of claim 1, wherein the first storage space includes a first storage section and a second storage section (Spykerman, Fig. 3, since the dividers divides the space into two storage sections) on opposing sides of the first divider wall, and wherein the second storage space includes a third storage section and a fourth storage section (similar to the first and second storage sections) on opposing sides of the second divider wall.
Regarding claim 13, Loisel discloses a storage system for a vehicle (Loisel, Fig. 3), comprising: a first storage assembly (Loisel, Fig. 3, base 17) configured to be disposed on a rear seating area (Loisel, 2 in Fig. 2), the first storage assembly including: a first base (Loisel, 17 in Fig. 3) configured to be disposed over a seat base (Loisel, Fig. 2, seating 2 has a seat base), wherein the first base includes a first edge and a second edge (Loisel, Fig. 3-4, front edge and rear edge); a first rear surface (Loisel, Fig. 3, rear surface of the front seat 1); and a second storage assembly (Loisel, 9 in Fig. 7) configured to be disposed over a cargo space (Loisel, Fig. 3, space behind the seats), the second storage assembly including: a second base (Loisel, 9 in Fig. 7) disposed across the cargo space; a second rear surface (Loisel, Fig. 3, rear surface of the seat 2 or Fig. 4, surface below 8a).
Loisel fails to disclose a first partition extending from the first edge of the first base and adjacent to the first rear surface; a second partition extending from the second edge of the first base, wherein a first storage space is defined between the first partition and the second partition; and a first divider wall extending between the first partition and the second partition; a third partition extending from the second base and adjacent to the second rear surface; and a second divider wall extending from the third partition across the cargo space.
Spykerman teaches a first partition (Spykerman, 24 in Fig. 3) extending from the first edge (Spykerman, Fig. 1 and 3, one longitudinal edge 16 of base 12) of the first base, a second partition (Spykerman, 22 in Fig. 3) extending from the second edge (Spykerman, 14 in Fig. 1) of the first base, wherein a first storage space is defined between the first partition and the second partition (Spykerman, Fig. 3, storage space within the bin); a first divider wall (Spykerman, 60 in Fig. 3) extending between the first partition and the second partition.
Spykerman is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle storage system as Loisel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as taught by Loisel to incorporate the teachings of Spykerman with a reasonable expectation of success and install the storage bin of Spykerman in the vehicle interior of Loisel. Doing so provides additional customizable storage means and organizational means when desired.
The combination of Loisel in view of Spykerman fails to teach a third partition extending from the second base and a second divider wall extending from the third partition. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a second storage bin system of Spykerman such that there are a third partition and a second divider, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), MPEP 2144.04 VI. Doing so provides additional customization of the vehicle space and provides more storage space when needed.
The combination of Loisel in view of Spykerman teaches the claimed invention except for adjacent to the first rear surface, adjacent to the second rear surface, and the second divider extending across the cargo space. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange two storage bins of Spykerman into the vehicle interior of Loisel with one located at above the folded rear seats and the other behind in the cargo space such that the first partition is adjacent the first rear surface, the third partition is adjacent the second rear surface, and the divider extends across the cargo space, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), see MPEP 2144.04 VI. Doing so allows maximum space utilization such that the vehicle can fit the two storage bins.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Loisel in view of Spykerman teaches the vehicle storage system of claim 13, wherein a second storage space (space of the duplicated second storage bin of Spykerman) is configured to be defined between the third partition and a liftgate of said vehicle (Loisel, Fig. 7, liftgate).
Claim(s) 11 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Loisel in view of Spykerman as applied to claims 4 and 13 above, and further in view of Ohayon (US 20070158347 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Loisel in view of Spykerman teaches the vehicle storage system of claim 4, but fails to teach a cross member extending between the first partition and the third partition, and wherein the cross member is coupled to a top edge of the first divider wall.
Ohayon teaches a cross member (Ohayon, 52 in Fig. 2) extending between the first partition and the third partition (after combination), and wherein the cross member is coupled to a top edge of the first divider wall (Ohayon, Fig. 2, couples to top edge of divider 48, can do the same after combination the divider of Spykerman).
Ohayon is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of storage systems with partitions as Loisel in view of Spykerman.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as taught by Loisel in view of Spykerman to incorporate the teachings of Spykerman with a reasonable expectation of success and have a cross member. Doing so provides more organization means for items stored in the storage space.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Loisel in view of Spykerman teaches the vehicle storage system of claim 13, but fails to teach slide stops selectively coupled to the first base, and wherein the slide stops extend parallel to the first partition and the second partition.
Ohayon teaches slide stops (Ohayon, 52 in Fig. 2, in a barrier form that physically prevents sliding; can have one for each divider in the storage space since Spykerman teaches two dividers) selectively coupled to the first base, and wherein the slide stops extend parallel to the first partition and the second partition (after combination, dividers of Spykerman is perpendicular to the partitions, and slide stops 52 of Ohayon will be perpendicular to the dividers therefore parallel to the partitions).
Ohayon is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of storage systems with partitions as Loisel in view of Spykerman.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as taught by Loisel in view of Spykerman to incorporate the teachings of Ohayon with a reasonable expectation of success and have a slide stops. Doing so provides more organization means for items stored in the storage space.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Loisel in view of Spykerman as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Gehring et al. (US 6623059 B2).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Loisel in view of Spykerman teaches the vehicle storage system of claim 13, wherein the first partition includes an inner surface (Spykerman, Fig. 3, surface facing interior of the storage space).
The combination of Loisel in view of Spykerman fails to teach hooks are disposed along the inner surface of the first partition.
Gehring teaches hooks (Gehring, 50 in Fig. 1 and Col. 7 lines 55-56, hook on inner side of the storage) are disposed along the inner surface of the first partition.
Gehring is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle storage systems with partitions as Loisel in view of Spykerman.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as taught by Loisel in view of Spykerman to incorporate the teachings of Gehring with a reasonable expectation of success and have hooks. Doing so provide means for hanging items and securing items in place.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-20 are allowed.
Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 2 and 12 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: The primary reason for the allowance of the claims is the inclusion in the claims of the limitations directed to a first base portion extending from the first rear surface of the first seating assembly over the second rear surface of the second seating assembly and a second base portion extending from the second rear surface toward the vehicle liftgate as claimed in claim 2; a cross feature coupled with the second divider wall, wherein the cross feature extends between the first sidewall and the second sidewall parallel to the second partition; and at least one inner door operably coupled to the cross feature, wherein the at least one inner door is selectively actuated to provide access to the second storage space as claimed in claim 9; and a base including a first portion proximate a rear seating space and a second portion proximate a floor of a cargo space; a first storage assembly defining a first storage space disposed on the first portion of the base, the first storage assembly includes: a first partition and a second partition extending from the base, wherein the first partition and the second partition are parallel to and spaced apart from one another; a divider extends between the first partition and the second partition across the rear seating space; and a second storage assembly defining a second storage space disposed on the second portion of the base, the second storage assembly includes: a third partition extending from the base; and a dividing wall extending from the third partition across the floor of the cargo space as claimed in claim 17. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claims, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record.
Loisel discloses a base with two portions (17 and 9 in Fig. 3 and 7), but fails to disclose partitions and dividers. Spykerman is incorporated to teach the partition and divider, but also brings their own base (12 in Fig. 1), which does not have the two portions as required by claims 2 and 17. Wang (US 20170341586 A1) teaches a cross feature (top panel of 1 in Fig. 1) and inner door (exterior cover of one of the drawers, which is selectively slidable to access the space inside and over the base). However, combining Wang with Loisel and Spykerman is not obvious due to the very different and conflicting storage structures and would not yield a storage system meeting the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references that are not relied upon all disclose vehicle storage system associated with second row seats.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wenwei Zhuo whose telephone number is (571)272-5564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. 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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at (571) 272-5109. 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.
/WENWEI ZHUO/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights