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 § 103
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 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 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hodges (U.S. 2017/0253190A1), in view of J.R. Setina (U.S. 3,667,801).
Regarding claim 1, Hodges discloses a vehicular partition frame assembly (1, fig. 1 and para 0035), disposed between front and back seats of a vehicle (refer to para 0036), and comprising an upper plastic partition frame (2,3,4; para 0035: “made of…polymer”) and a lower fixing and supporting frame (5,6), wherein the upper plastic partition frame (2,3,4) and the lower fixing and supporting frame (5,6) are detachably connected (at “divider 8”; abstract” the divider can be installed to secure upper frame 2,3,4 and lower frame 5,6 together. If it can be installed, it can be uninstalled; therefore, detachably connected);
the lower fixing and supporting frame (5,6) is configured to (the phrase “configured to” is related to the intended use of the apparatus. A recitation with respect to the manner in which an apparatus is intended to be employed does not impose any structural limitation upon the claimed apparatus which differentiates it from a prior art reference disclosing the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2111.02) be fixedly connected with a vehicular floor assembly (see figs. 1-7), and the upper plastic partition frame (2,3,4) is configured to (intended use) be fixedly connected with a vehicular roof plate assembly (see figs. 1-7);
the upper plastic partition frame (2,3,4) is provided with a guide rail mounting position (“window 11”; para 0037: the window moves in a sliding manner indicating a rail along which the window slides), a glass regulation device mounting position (3) and an audio-video device mounting position (9; para 0035: “TV monitors”).
However, Hodges is silent to the window comprising a glass.
J.R. Setina generally teaches vehicle partition apparatus comprising sliding windows (32, 34; see fig. 1 and refer to col. 2, lines 61-70), wherein the windows comprises a bullet-proof glass (refer to col. 3, lines 53-65).
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 sliding window of Hodges to include a bullet-proof glass, as taught by J.R. Setina, for the purpose of providing security to the driver (refer to col. 3, lines 53-65).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Hodges and J.R. Setina teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; J.R. Setina further teaches wherein an upper plastic partition frame comprises a first crossbeam (16, figs. 1-2), the first crossbeam (16, figs. 1-2) is provided with a roof cover mounting hole (26, 30, fig. 1), and the upper plastic partition frame is fixedly connected with a vehicular roof plate through the roof cover mounting hole (26, 30, fig. 1).
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 upper plastic partition frame crossbeam to include mounting holes, as taught by J.R. Setina, for the purpose of securing the upper plastic partition frame to the vehicle roof.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hodges (U.S. 2017/0253190A1), in view of J.R. Setina (U.S. 3,667,801) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Hayakawa et al. (U.S. 2020/0385066A1).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Hodges and J.R. Setina teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; however, Hodges and J.R. Setina is silent to the upper plastic partition frame is injection molded.
Hayakawa et al. generally teach that vehicle body partitions are formed by injection molding (refer to para 0057).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the vehicle body partitions of Hodges by injection molding, as taught by Hayakawa et al. since its known to use injection molding in manufacturing vehicle body parts since it is a fast and efficient manufacturing process.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Hodges, J.R. Setina, and Hayakawa et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 2 above; J.R. Setina further teaches wherein an upper plastic partition frame comprises a first crossbeam (16, figs. 1-2), the first crossbeam (16, figs. 1-2) is provided with a roof cover mounting hole (26, 30, fig. 1), and the upper plastic partition frame is fixedly connected with a vehicular roof plate through the roof cover mounting hole (26, 30, fig. 1).
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 upper plastic partition frame crossbeam to include mounting holes, as taught by J.R. Setina, for the purpose of securing the upper plastic partition frame to the vehicle roof.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-18 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gardner et al. (U.S. 2019/0001911A1), and Setina (U.S. 2013/0147221A1), Storer et al. (U.S. 2010/0201148A1), and Dillon (U.S. 5,511,842).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YANICK A AKARAGWE whose telephone number is (469)295-9298. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7:30-5:30.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571) 272-5405. 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.
/YANICK A AKARAGWE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights