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
Claims 1-3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, “the other end side” lacks proper antecedent basis.
In claim 3, “the other one of the lid member” lacks proper antecedent basis.
In claim 1, “a lid member the position of which…” should read -- a lid member, the position of which…--. In other words, insert a comma (“,”) before “the position of”. This also applies to claim 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
In claim 2, it is unclear whether the second recitation of “the groove” is referring to “the first engagement guide groove” or “the second engagement guide groove”.
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 Sakakibara et al. (U.S. 2022/0306008A1), in view of Hamamoto et al. (U.S. 2006/0061153A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sakakibara et al. disclose an on-vehicle double opening storage device (1, fig. 1 and para 009), comprising: a case member (10) having a box shape with an internal space (see fig. 1 and refer to para 0032), and having an opening (11) through which the internal space communicates with the outside (as shown in fig. 1);
a lid member (20; para 0031) the position of which is changeable between a closed position at which the lid member closes the opening of the case member (10; refer to para 0034), a first opened position at which the lid member (20) opens the opening (11) by rotating (refer to para 0034), from the closed position, around a first axis (see figs. 1-2) disposed at one end side of the case member (10), and a second opened position (refer to para 0034) at which the lid member opens the opening by rotating, from the closed position, around a second axis parallel to the first axis (see figs. 1-2) and disposed at the other end side of the case member (refer to para 0034);
a hinge member (32; see figs. 1-2, 5-6, and refer to para 0038) interposed between the case member (10) and the lid member (20), the hinge member (32) including a first shaft (34L) that is tubular in shape (see figs. 5-6), forms a part of the first axis (see figs. 1-2), and is pivotally supported by the case member (10), a second shaft (34R) that is tubular in shape (see figs. 5-6), forms a part of the second axis (see figs. 1-2 and 5-6), extends in a direction opposite to the first shaft (34L; see figs. 5-6), and is pivotally supported by the lid member (20, see fig. 1), and a hinge arm (32a, figs. 5-6) connecting the first shaft (34L) and the second shaft (34R); and
a switching element (39; fig. 6 and para 0052) that changes a connection state between the lid member (20), the hinge member (32), and the case member (10) to switch an opening/closing mode of the lid member (20) between a closing mode that locks the lid member (20) at the closed position (refer to para 0052), a first opening mode that makes the lid member (20) rotatable between the closed position and the first opened position (refer to para 0052-0060), and a second opening mode that makes the lid member (20) rotatable between the closed position and the second opened position (refer to para 0052-0060),
However, Sakakibara et al. is silent to wherein the first shaft, the second shaft, and the hinge arm are integrally resin-molded.
Hamamoto et al. generally teach that vehicle body parts can be made of an integrally molded resin product (refer to para 0044).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted one type of material for another, to achieve the predictable result of making vehicle body parts. Also, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Sakakibara et al. and Hamamoto et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Sakakibara et al. further disclose a vibration suppression part (anyone of rods 42 or 52 comprising biasing members 44 and 54 can serve as a vibration suppression system because of the functionality of the biasing elements) that is disposed on one of the lid member (20) and the switching element (39; as shown in fig. 6), and comes into pressure contact with the other one of the lid member and the switching element while being elastically deformed (see figs. 6-8).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ike et al. (U.S. 2019/0063132A1), Lein et al. (U.S. 6,761,388), Allison (U.S. 6,003,716), Aihara et al. (U.S. 5,210,906), and Aihara et al. (U.S. 5,173,992).
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