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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant’s information disclosure statement filed 12/11/2024 has been considered and is included in the file.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “55”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 § 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 2-3 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 2 recites the limitation "the vehicle" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 is rejected for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-7, 10-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gill et al. (US 2022/0355738) in view of Foster (US 2011/0014863).
Regarding claim 1, Gill et al. discloses a vehicle storage compartment comprising: a housing having an upper storage compartment (Fig. 2 shows the upper storage compartment) and a hidden lower storage compartment (Fig. 3 shows the hidden lower storage compartment); an upper panel (bottom of (22)) defining a bottom floor of the upper storage compartment (Fig. 2); a lower floor (30) located below the upper panel (bottom of (22)), wherein the hidden lower storage compartment extends between the upper panel and the lower floor (Fig. 3).
Gill et al. does not explicitly disclose a radio frequency blocker provided in at least the upper panel to block transmission of radio frequency signals through the upper panel.
Foster, like Gill et al., teaches a vehicle storage compartment, and further teaches a radio frequency blocker provided in at least the upper panel (paragraph [0046], lines 6-11) to block transmission of radio frequency signals through the upper panel (Fig. 1a, paragraph [0048], lines 9-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle storage compartment of Gill et al. to include a radio frequency blocked as taught by Foster, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide protection over a distracted driver (Foster: paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claim 2, Gill et al. as modified by Foster teaches the vehicle storage compartment of claim 1, and teaches (references to Gill et al.) wherein the housing defines a frunk of the vehicle (abstract, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Gill et al. as modified by Foster teaches the vehicle storage compartment of claim 2, and teaches (references to Gill et al.) wherein the frunk has a hood panel (14).
Regarding claim 4, Gill et al. as modified by Foster teaches the vehicle storage compartment of claim 1, and teaches (references to Foster) wherein the radio frequency blocker is further provided in sidewalls of the hidden compartment (paragraph [0048], lines 9-12, walls).
Regarding claim 5, Gill et al. as modified by Foster teaches the vehicle storage compartment of claim 4, and teaches (references to Foster) wherein the radio frequency blocker is further provided in lower floor (paragraph [0048], lines 9-12, bottom).
Regarding claim 6, Gill et al. as modified by Foster teaches the vehicle storage compartment of claim 1, and teaches (references to Foster) wherein the radio frequency blocker comprises a conductive material (paragraph [0046], lines 6-11).
Regarding claim 7, Gill et al. as modified by Foster teaches the vehicle storage compartment of claim 6, and teaches (references to Foster) wherein the conductive material comprises a Faraday fabric (paragraph [0046], lines 6-11, paragraph [0063], lines 8-11).
Regarding claim 10, Gill et al. as modified by Foster teaches the vehicle storage compartment of claim 1, and teaches (references to Foster) the vehicle storage compartment further comprising a lock ((7), paragraph [0047]) provided on the upper panel (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Gill et al. as modified by Foster teaches the vehicle storage compartment of claim 10, and teaches (references to Foster) wherein the lock may be actuated remotely by an electronic device ((7), paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claim 12, Gill et al. discloses a motor vehicle (10) comprising: a frunk ((12), Fig. 2) located generally proximate a front end of the motor vehicle (Fig. 2); and a vehicle storage compartment, the vehicle storage compartment comprising: a housing having an upper storage compartment (Fig. 2 shows the upper storage compartment) and a hidden lower storage compartment (Fig. 3 shows the hidden lower storage compartment); an upper panel (bottom of (22)) defining a bottom floor of the upper storage compartment (Fig. 2); a lower floor (30) located below the upper panel (bottom of (22)), wherein the hidden lower storage compartment extends between the upper panel and the lower floor (Fig. 3).
Gill et al. does not explicitly disclose a radio frequency blocker comprising a conductive shield provided in at least the upper panel to block transmission of radio frequency signals through the upper panel.
Foster, like Gill et al., teaches a vehicle storage compartment, and further teaches a radio frequency blocker comprising a conductive shield provided in at least the upper panel (paragraph [0046], lines 6-11) to block transmission of radio frequency signals through the upper panel (Fig. 1a, paragraph [0048], lines 9-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the motor vehicle of Gill et al. to include a radio frequency blocked as taught by Foster, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide protection over a distracted driver (Foster: paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claim 13, Gill et al. as modified by Foster teaches the motor vehicle of claim 12, and teaches (references to Gill et al.) wherein the frunk has a hood panel (14).
Regarding claim 14, Gill et al. as modified by Foster teaches the motor vehicle of claim 12, and teaches (references to Foster) wherein the radio frequency blocker is further provided in sidewalls of the hidden compartment (paragraph [0048], lines 9-12, walls).
Regarding claim 15, Gill et al. as modified by Foster teaches the motor vehicle of claim 14, and teaches (references to Foster) wherein the radio frequency blocker is further provided in lower floor (paragraph [0048], lines 9-12, bottom).
Regarding claim 16, Gill et al. as modified by Foster teaches the motor vehicle of claim 15, and teaches (references to Foster) wherein the conductive shield comprises a Faraday fabric (paragraph [0046], lines 6-11, paragraph [0063], lines 8-11).
Regarding claim 19, Gill et al. as modified by Foster teaches the motor vehicle of claim 12, and teaches (references to Foster) the motor vehicle further comprising a lock ((7), paragraph [0047]) provided on the upper panel (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 20, Gill et al. as modified by Foster teaches the motor vehicle of claim 19, and teaches (references to Foster) wherein the lock may be actuated remotely by an electronic device ((7), paragraph [0047]).
Claims 8-9 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gill et al. (US 2022/0355738) in view of Foster (US 2011/0014863) as applied to claim 7 and to claim 16 above respectively, and further in view of Matselevich (RU 223878, machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 8, Gill et al. as modified by Foster teaches the vehicle storage compartment of claim 7. However, Gill et al. as modified by Foster does not explicitly teach wherein the lower floor comprises a polymeric layer, an interior lining and the Faraday fabric.
Matselevich, like Gill et al., teaches a compartment, and further teaches wherein the lower floor (100) comprises a polymeric layer (21), an interior lining (21) and the Faraday fabric (23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle storage compartment of Gill et al. as modified by Foster with the layering of the lower floor as taught by Matselevich, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide an increasing in shielding ability provided with a three-layer design (Matselevich: p. 2, second paragraph).
Regarding claim 9, Gill et al. as modified by Foster and Matselevich teaches the vehicle storage compartment of claim 8, and teaches (references to Matselevich) wherein the Faraday fabric is disposed between the polymeric later and the interior lining (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 17, Gill et al. as modified by Foster teaches the motor vehicle of claim 16. However, Gill et al. as modified by Foster does not explicitly teach wherein the lower floor comprises a polymeric layer, an interior lining and the Faraday fabric.
Matselevich, like Gill et al., teaches a compartment to be placed within a larger area, and further teaches wherein the lower floor (100) comprises a polymeric layer (21), an interior lining (21) and the Faraday fabric (23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the motor vehicle of Gill et al. as modified by Foster with the layering of the lower floor as taught by Matselevich, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide an increasing in shielding ability provided with a three-layer design (Matselevich: p. 2, second paragraph).
Regarding claim 18, Gill et al. as modified by Foster and Matselevich teaches the motor vehicle of claim 17, and teaches (references to Matselevich) wherein the Faraday fabric is disposed between the polymeric later and the interior lining (Fig. 2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Rzepecki (US 4528222), Ireland (US 2004/0113792), Colby (US 2006/0187061), Jorgenson (US 2007/0163905), Beinhocker (US 2009/0115607), Shar (US 2010/0270069), Simpson (US 2012/0279875), McGinn (US 2012/0326845), Simpson (US 2014/0298492), Thomas (US 2016/0234356), Tieman (US 2016/0343190), Elizondo (US 2017/0196128) , McGinn (US 2017/2041165), Thiel (US 2018/0062197) Quarta (US 2018/0176783) Steel (US 10334765) Steel (US 10499549) Griffin (US 11278094), Williams (US 2026/0159001), Shipley (US 2026/0167269), and Zheng (CN 113992301) teach the frunk storage compartment, RF blocker technology, and/or upper/lower compartment configuration.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLY W. LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-5552. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30am-5:30pm, Eastern Time, alternate Friday.
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, Peter M Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/CARLY W. LYNCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights