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 § 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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hashimoto (6,893,080).
Hashimoto discloses a cargo extending system for a vehicle comprising a cabin area (2) having a floor (7), a cargo area (3) having a cargo bed surface (4), a seat (6) disposed in the cabin area (2), and a gate (11) disposed between the cabin area (2) and the cargo area (3), as shown in Figure 1. The seat (6) is configured to pivot in a forward direction of the vehicle to expose the floor (7), as shown in Figure 1 and disclosed on lines 57-67 of column 2. The gate (11) has a first surface and a second surface, as shown in Figure 1. The gate (11) moves between a closed configuration, as shown in Figure 1, in which the first surface faces in a direction of the cabin area and an open configuration, as shown in Figure 1, in which the second surface is generally planar with the cargo bed surface, as shown in Figure 1.
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto (6,893,080) in view of Sasaki et al. (US 2018/0244179).
Hashimoto discloses the seat (6) is supported by the floor (7) of the cabin area, as shown in Figure 1.
However, Hashimoto does not explicitly disclose two hinges.
Sasaki et al. teaches pivotally coupling a seat (40) to a vehicle floor by two hinges (20), as shown in Figures 1-4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide two hinges to the pivotal seat of Hashimoto, as taught by Sasaki et al., with a reasonable expectation for success as an obvious expedient to provide the disclosed pivoting in a manner that supports the seat.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto (6,893,080) in view of Fisher et al. (6,416,104).
Hashimoto does not disclose the ribs.
Fisher et al. teaches providing ribs on the floor (18) of a cabin area, as shown in Figure 6.
PNG
media_image1.png
223
449
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 17, a storage area is disposed between the ribs on the floor of the cabin area, as shown in Figure 6.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide ribs in the floor of Hashimoto resulting in a storage area disposed between the ribs, as taught by Fisher et al., with a reasonable expectation for success to improve rigidity of the floor.
Claim 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto (6,893,080) in view of Kammerer (US 2004/0256900).
Hashimoto does not disclose the seat brackets.
Kammerer teaches providing seat brackets (203) to a vehicle floor to support a rear portion of a seat in a seating position, as shown in Figure 9.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide seat brackets to support the seat of Hashimoto in the seating portion, as taught by Kammerer, with a reasonable expectation for success resulting in the gate being configured to overlie the seat brackets when in the open position to safely maintain the seat in the seating position when supporting a passenger while allowing the seat to be disconnected to move to a displaced position.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are allowed.
Claims 12-14, 19, and 20 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 indicating allowable subject matter of claims 1 and 12 is the gate pivots to a position contacting the floor of the cabin area, which is not found in the prior art of record. The closest prior art Buccinna et al. discloses a gate that pivots towards the floor, but stops at a position parallel to the floor to provide a level platform.
The primary reason for indicating allowable subject matter of claim 19 is the gate is supported by a first cross member in the open configuration and the second cross member supports the seat brackets, which is not found in the prior art of records.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY A BLANKENSHIP whose telephone number is (571)272-6656. The examiner can normally be reached 7-4:30.
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.
GREGORY A. BLANKENSHIP
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3612
/GREGORY A BLANKENSHIP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612 July 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights