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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
The drawings have poor line quality, and thus do not meet the reproducibility standards of 37 CFR 1.84(L). Note that the drawings must be viewed in the USPTO Patent Center in order to see this problem. See example below. The drawings likely contain grayscale elements, which cause image degradation in the USPTO electronic filing system. Drawings must be entirely bi-tonal, containing only black or white color values.
PNG
media_image1.png
220
290
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The reference numerals in Figs. 1-3, 8-10, and 12 are too small. See 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3).
The scale of the drawings is required to be “large enough to show the mechanism.” 37 CFR 1.84(k). Some of the drawings, notably Figs. 1-3 and 10, are of too small a scale to adequately illustrate the invention, especially when compounded by the poor line quality.
Figs. 11a and 11b must be separately labeled (rather than both figures being grouped together as “Fig. 11”), as the specification identifies them as separate views.
The claimed “recessed slot,” “slot cover plate,” and “step” in claim 4 must be shown in the drawings as required by 37 CFR 1.83(a).
The claimed “support” recited in claim 5 must be shown in the drawings as required by 37 CFR 1.83(a).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the use of the implied phrase “is provided.” A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Examiner suggests the following changes:
A multifunctional vehicle bumper body provided with a folding box cover, the box body being arranged at the opening and connected to the bumper body so that the box body is operable to slide between first and second positions in a direction along the opening away from or approaching the vehicle body. With the box body in the first position, an outer side end cover thereof is substantially flush with the side face of the bumper body distant from the vehicle body. With the box body in the second position, the box body is in an open state, with the folding box cover being operable to be unfolded, thus allowing a user to use an internal device and/or space of the box body.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In lines 2-3, the phrase “a box cover lifting mechanisms” is grammatically incorrect.
In line 8, the phrase “are fixed” disagrees grammatically with the term “the box cover lifting mechanism.”
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.
Claims 2-12 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.
With regard to claim 2, the phrase “are connected at edges thereof” is confusing, because it is unclear exactly which claim element is referred to by “thereof.”
With regard to claim 3:
The term “the top” in line 2 lacks antecedent basis.
It is unclear how the flush mounting slot (e.g. elements 2111 and 2112 in Figs. 3a and 3b) is capable of “accommodating the foldable kitchen utensil.” The foldable kitchen utensil is the folding table and grill assembly 4. The foldable kitchen utensil 4 is comparatively large and does not seem to engage with slots 2111 or 2112.
With regard to claim 4, the claim elements “recessed slot,” “slot cover plate,” and “step” are not shown in the drawings, as discussed in the drawing objection above. This renders the claim confusing as to what these structures actually entail. Additionally, it is unclear how the “flush mounting slot” can comprise not only a “recessed slot,” but also a “slot cover plate,” and a “step.” The plain meaning of a slot is an opening or hole, and thus would generally not include a cover plate.
With regard to claim 5, it is unclear what is meant by the support having “a distant end thereof facing outwards,” as the support is not shown in the drawings (see drawing objection above). Additionally, the claim does not provide any reference for what direction would be considered “distant” or what direction would be considered “outwards.”
With regard to claim 6:
In line 6, the phrase “at two ends thereof” is confusing, because it is unknown what claim element is referred to by the word “thereof.”
In line 14, the term “small hole” is ambiguous, as the term “small” is relative, and the claim provides no reference for what would be considered a “small” hole versus a “big” hole.
In line 17, the phrase “the handle is in a flexible connection with the box body” is confusing, as the specification does not define what a “flexible” connection is. In fact, there is nothing in the specification that indicates the handle’s connection is flexible. The handle is described as a “protruded push-pull handle” in paragraph 0011, and it is unclear how this type of handle is considered a “flexible” connection.
With regard to claim 8:
The term “the foldable kitchen utensil” in line 2 lacks antecedent basis. Thus, it is unclear how the term “foldable kitchen utensil” relates to the “internal device” of claim 1 (line 12) or the “box body” of claim 1 (i.e. whether it is the same as the “internal device” or whether it is additional to the “internal device”).
The term “foldable/deployable” used in lines 2 and 3 is confusing, as it is unclear whether the claim requires the legs to be foldable or deployable, or foldable and deployable.
With regard to claim 9:
The phrase “a side of the other end is connected to one side of the shelf” in line 3 is confusing. Firstly, it is unclear which claim element possesses “the other end.” Secondly, the shelf 423 is connected to the side of the support rack 4222, rather than the end, according to Fig. 9.
It appears that claim 9 contains confusing and inconsistent usage of the terms “support platform,” “support rack,” grill support rack,” and “support platform.” For example, it is unclear what the difference is between the “support rack” and the “support platform.” Numeral 42 is used for the support platform in Fig. 9 and numeral 422 is used for the support rack. However, these numerals seem to refer to the same element.
With regard to claim 12, the phrase “after retraction” is confusing, as the concept of retracting of the support legs has not previously been introduced in the claims.
Claims 7, 10, and 11 are rejected based on their dependence upon rejected claims.
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, 5, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye et al. (CN 114655151 A, hereinafter Ye) in view of Wymore (US 2018/0072254).
With regard to claim 1, Ye discloses a multifunctional vehicle bumper, comprising:
a bumper body (11), an opening (see opening cut-out around element 62) formed on a side of the bumper body distant from a vehicle body; and
a box body (62) provided with a folding box cover (63), the box body arranged at the opening (Fig. 1), and connected to the bumper body by means of a sliding connection device (61), wherein the sliding connection device is arranged parallel to a direction of the vehicle body (Fig. 3), so that the box body is operable to slide along the opening between a first position and a second position in directions away from or approaching the vehicle body (compare Figs. 1 and 3);
when the box body is at the first position (Fig. 1), an outer side end cover thereof is substantially flush with a side face of the vehicle bumper body distant from the vehicle body (Fig. 1),
when the box body is at the second position (Fig. 3), the box body is in an open prepared state (Fig. 3), and the folding box cover is operable to be unfolded, thus allowing a user to use an internal device and/or space of the box body (Fig. 3 shows the box body open with the box cover unfolded).
Ye fails to teach the box body being operable to be locked with the bumper body in the first position.
Wymore teaches a bumper-mounted drawer similar to that of Ye, in which the drawer can be locked in the closed position with a locking device (29).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Ye to have the locking mechanism of Wymore, in order to “provide security for the items contained in the storage compartment” (Wymore, paragraph 0045).
With regard to claim 2, Ye teaches that the folding box cover comprises a plurality of box cover plates, which are connected at edges thereof via connecting pieces and are operable to be closed to a folded state or opened to a spread state (see annotated Fig. below).
PNG
media_image2.png
244
526
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 3, as best understood, Ye teaches that the box body has a folding top (i.e. the top cover 63). This folding top can itself be a kitchen utensil (Ye says it can be used as a “movable table”), and it can also open to reveal a space that can accommodate any kind of foldable tool or cooking device.
With regard to claim 5, as best understood, Ye teaches that a support (2) is arranged on a bottom of the box cover plate with a distant end thereof facing outwards (Fig. 3 shows the support 2 positioned under the box body and the box cover plate).
With regard to claim 14, Ye teaches a vehicle (10), comprising a vehicle body and the multifunctional vehicle bumper according to claim 1, wherein the multifunctional vehicle bumper is mounted at a head or a tail of the vehicle body and is arranged protruding outwards (see Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye in view of Wymore as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang (CN 208822509 U).
With regard to claim 8, Ye fails to teach a foldable kitchen utensil as specifically recited.
However, Yang teaches a foldable kitchen utensil comprises a plurality of foldable/deployable support legs (30) and a foldable/deployable support platform (20, 21, 22, etc.);
when the support legs and the support platform are folded, the support legs fold up to sides of the support platform (see Figs. 3 and 4); and
when the support legs and the support platform are deployed, a periphery of the support platform is connected to the plurality of support legs, the support legs being perpendicular to a surface of the support platform (Fig. 1).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Ye in view of Wymore by storing the foldable kitchen utensil of Yang within Ye’s drawer, with a reasonable expectation of success, given that Ye’s drawer is for the purpose of storing outdoor equipment, and Yang’s portable cooking assembly would be useful for outdoor activities such as camping.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 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.
Claims 4, 6, 7, and 9-12 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references provide further examples of bumpers having drawer elements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E FULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6300. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM - 5:30PM.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at 571-270-7741. 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.
/ROBERT E FULLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676
