DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s Preliminary Amendment, filed 3/6/2025, has been entered. Claims 1-5 are pending.
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 it is a single run-on sentence (i.e. not in narrative form) that is substantially similar to the independent claim,
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).
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 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 of this title, 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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryan (US 5167433) in view of Harasawa et al. (US 20230405912).
Regarding claim 1: Ryan discloses a vehicle storage box laid on a luggage compartment floor (Figs. 1-3; col. 1, lines 24-31). Ryan discloses an accommodating portion 1 bounded by a bottom 6 and a wall 8, 9, 10 rising from the bottom in an upward direction of a vehicle (Figs. 1-3; col. 2, lines 53-63). Ryan discloses that the accommodating portion is provided with a partition protruding convexly from the bottom in the upward direction of the vehicle (Figs. 18A-19).
Ryan discloses that the bottom, the wall, and the partition are molded in one piece (col. 2, line 64-col. 3, line 13; col. 5, lines 28-32). However, Ryan is silent regarding the specific molding steps and does not explicitly disclose that the molding in one piece comprises stacking a base material made of a resin sheet and a skin material, and that the skin material faces a vehicle interior. Harasawa discloses that the molding in one piece comprises stacking a base material made of a resin sheet and a skin material and that the skin material faces a vehicle interior ([0030], [0043], [0049], [0050]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Ryan so that the molding in one piece comprises stacking a base material made of a resin sheet and a skin material, and that the skin material faces a vehicle interior as taught by Harasawa. As both Ryan and Harasawa are directed to vehicle storage boxes in a luggage compartment, as Ryan is silent regarding specific molding steps, as luggage compartment storage is very well known in the art, and a Harasawa explicitly teaches that the molding in one piece comprises stacking a base material made of a resin sheet and a skin material and that the skin material faces a vehicle interior, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a desired molding operation for a vehicle luggage compartment storage box from a finite selection of manufacturing configurations for such a storage box (i.e. a specific one-piece molding). Such a simple substitution/addition and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results.
Regarding claim 2: Ryan discloses that the accommodating portion includes at least two accommodating recesses defined by the at least one partition (Ryan – Figs. 17A, 18A-19, 22, 23).
Regarding claim 3: Ryan discloses that the partition is formed along a width direction of the vehicle and that among the at least two accommodating recesses, a bottom of an accommodating recess located on a vehicle front side is positioned on a more vehicle upper side than a bottom of an accommodating recess located on a vehicle rear side (Ryan – Figs. 17A, 18A-19, 22, 23).
Regarding claim 4: Ryan discloses further comprising the partition formed along a front-rear direction of the vehicle (Ryan – Figs. 17A, 18A-19, 22, 23).
Regarding claim 5: Ryan discloses that an advantageous feature of the liner is compartmentalization, which is useful from a storage and organizational perspective, and may be achieved in a variety of ways (Ryan – col. 4, lines 57-60). However, Ryan, as modified by Harasawa, does not explicitly disclose that electronics are placed on a vehicle lower side of an accommodating recess, among the at least two accommodating recesses, that is shallowly formed. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have understood that Ryan, as modified by Harasawa, could be configured to hold electronics so that electronics are placed on a vehicle lower side of an accommodating recess, among the at least two accommodating recesses, that is shallowly formed. As Ryan teaches various storage configurations, as Ryan and Harasawa teach that the liner and panels can be molded as desired, as the use of luggage compartment storage for storing various items used in a vehicle or in travel is very well known in the art, and as Ryan teaches an advantageous feature of compartmentalization, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a desired molding configuration and store desired items in the partitioned luggage compartment storage box from a finite selection of items to be stored in such a storage box (i.e. electronics (lights, batteries, laptops, etc.), shopping bags, or other travel related necessities). Such a simple substitution/addition and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARAS P BEMKO whose telephone number is (571)270-1830. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 (EDT/EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicole Coy can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Taras P Bemko/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
9/4/2026
Prosecution Insights