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 .
Election/Acknowledgement
Election of Group 1 (Embodiment 1; Reproductions 1.1-1.7) was made without traverse per response dated 10/30/2025. Groups 2 and 3, Embodiments 2 and 3, Reproductions 2.1-3.7 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being for the nonelected design.
Reproduction Objections
Inconsistency
The reproductions are objectionable due to inconsistencies seen in the figures. These inconsistent figures must be corrected to disclose a consistent design. See the sketches below for identification of the inconsistent subject matter. Please ensure that any corrections are carried throughout the figure drawings.
In Figure 1.3, there are fasteners/protrusions missing which are seen in Figures 1.1, 1.5, 1.6 and 1.7. In addition, there is also a bracket visible on the firewall in Figure 1.1 which is not present in Figure 1.3. See the sketches below, and areas annotated with arrows for more details (Figures 1.1 and 1.3 shown).
PNG
media_image1.png
1390
1105
media_image1.png
Greyscale
There is inconsistency between Figures 1.1, 1.3, 1.5 and 1.6. In Figures 1.5 and 1.6, there are elements present which are not seen in Figures 1.1 and 1.3. See the sketches below and areas annotated with circles for more details.
PNG
media_image2.png
1437
1428
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In Figure 1.4 it appears that the brackets are missing the internal structure which is visible in Figure 1.2. See the sketches below, and areas annotated with arrows for more details.
PNG
media_image3.png
1480
1533
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Specification Objections
Figure Descriptions
The description of the figures should be updated to reflect the election of the first group of the reproductions, removing the description for Figures 2.1-3.7.
Claim
The claim statement is objected to for not being in proper form, 37 CFR 1.153 or 37 CFR 1.1025. As the first group was elected as per the restriction requirement, the claim no longer accurately describes the claimed design. In order to accurately describe only the elected design, the claim statement must be amended to read:
-- I CLAIM:
The ornamental design for a Cabin for Vehicles, as shown and described.--
Replacement Reproductions
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. If all the figures on a drawing sheet are canceled, a replacement sheet is not required. A marked-up copy of the drawing sheet (labeled as "Annotated Sheet") including an annotation showing that all the figures on that drawing sheet have been canceled must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change to the drawings. 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
Claim Refusal- 35 USC § 112(a) and (b)
The claim is refused under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first and second paragraphs, as the claimed invention is not described in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the same, and fails 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.
The claim is indefinite and non-enabled. Specifically, the precise shape and relative location of certain elements cannot be determined. One skilled in the art would necessarily resort to conjecture attempting to understand these details. Please see sketches below for identification of the non-enabled subject matter. In an effort to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 112, (a) and (b) rejection, follow the guidelines provided with each sketch description.
In Figure 1.3, the areas highlighted in white and annotated with arrows are indefinite and non-enabled as their precise shape and location cannot be determined from the provided views. In an effort to overcome the refusal, these areas should be converted the lightweight broken lines and any surface shading removed. See the sketches below for more details.
PNG
media_image4.png
488
590
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In Figure 1.5, the areas highlighted in white and annotated with arrows are indefinite and non-enabled as their precise shape and location cannot be determined from the provided views. In an effort to overcome the refusal, these areas should be converted the lightweight broken lines and any surface shading removed. See the sketches below for more details.
PNG
media_image5.png
777
1375
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In Figure 1.7, the areas highlighted in white and annotated with arrows are indefinite and non-enabled as their precise shape cannot be determined from the provided views. In an effort to overcome the refusal, the areas WITHIN the highlighted areas should be converted the lightweight broken lines and any surface shading removed. See the sketches below for more details.
PNG
media_image6.png
885
1449
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim Refusal - 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)
The claim is refused under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Examiner's cited Non-Patent Document “U”, Discover the All-New Volvo A40 Articulated Hauler (Hereinafter "U"), because the invention was patented or 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. The “U” design was available on 06/13/2024. The effective filing date of the claimed invention is 10/16/2024.
PNG
media_image7.png
2216
1820
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
1797
1646
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The appearance of the “U” design is substantially the same as that of the claimed design. See e.g., International Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp., 589 F.3d 1233, 1237-38, 1240, 93 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2009) and MPEP § 1504.02.
Applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) to overcome this refusal under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) by a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application, and is therefore not prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). See MPEP 717.01(a). Alternatively, applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) by providing evidence of a prior public disclosure via an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b). See MPEP 717.01(b).
In either case above, see MPEP 717.01(c), section I for who may make a declaration, and section II for the formal requirements of a declaration submitted under 37 CFR 1.130. Specifically for the formal requirements, the "declaration must include an acknowledgment by the declarant that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both (18 U.S.C. 1001) and may jeopardize the validity of the application or any patent issuing thereon. The declarant must set forth in the body of the declaration that all statements made of the declarant’s own knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true."
Conclusion
The claim stands refused under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b), as well as 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the appearance of the claimed design.
Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence
Signature Required
Applicant is reminded that any reply to this action must be signed either by a patent practitioner (i.e., a patent attorney or agent registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office) or by the applicant. If the applicant is a juristic entity, the reply must be signed by a patent practitioner. See 37 CFR l.33(b).
Discussions Regarding the Merits of an Application
All discussions between the applicant and the examiner regarding the merits of a pending application will be considered in an interview and are to be made of record. See MPEP 713. The examiner will not discuss the merits of the application with applicant's representative if the representative is not registered to practice before the USPTO. Appointment as applicant's representative before the International Bureau pursuant to Rule 3 of the Common Regulations under the Hague Agreement does not entitle such representative to represent the applicant before the USPTO. Furthermore, an applicant that is a juristic entity must be represented by a patent attorney or agent registered to practice before the US PTO. See below for additional information regarding interviews.
Telephonic or In Person Interviews
A telephonic or in person interview may only be conducted with an attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO ("registered practitioner") or with a pro se applicant (an applicant who is the inventor and who is not represented by a registered practitioner).
The registered practitioner may either be of record or not of record. To become "of record," a power of attorney (POA) in accordance with 37 CFR 1.32 must be filed in the application. Form PTO/AIA /80 "Power of Attorney to Prosecute Applications Before the USPTO," available at www.uspto.gov/ patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012, may be used for this purpose. See MPEP § 402.02(a) for further information. Interviews may also be conducted with a registered practitioner not of record provided the registered practitioner can show authorization to conduct an interview by completing, signing and filing an "Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form" (PTOL-413A) (available at the USPTO web page indicated above). See MPEP § 405. For acceptable ways to submit forms to the USPTO, see "When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence" below.
If a prose applicant or registered practitioner located outside of the United States wishes to
communicate by telephone, the examiner may be contacted directly via email to arrange a time and date for the telephone interview. When proposing an interview appointment, include proposed days and times for the proposed call, and confirm who will initiate the call. For the examiner's work schedule, see Examiner Contact Information below.
Email Communications
The merits of the application will not be discussed via email (or other electronic medium) unless
appropriate authorization for internet communication is filed in the application. Form PTO/SB/439 "Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application or Request to Withdraw Authorization for Internet Communications" may be used to provide such authorization and is available at the USPTO web page indicated above. The authorization may not be sent by email to the USPTO. See MPEP 502.03.11 for further information. For acceptable ways to submit forms to the USPTO, see below.
Submitting Replies to the USPTO
The USPTO transacts business in writing. Applicants may submit replies to Office actions only by:
Online via the USPTO Electronic Filing System-Web (EFS-Web) (Registered eFilers only). See
https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/applying-online/efs-web-guidance-and-resources
By mail: Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA, 22313-1450;
By facsimile via the USPTO official fax number (571-273-8300); or
By hand-carry to the USPTO Alexandria, Virginia, Customer Service Window.
For more information, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/maintain/responding-office-actions
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER J DAVID whose telephone number is (703)756-1578. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8am-5pm.
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, Richard Kearney can be reached at 571-272-8312. 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.
/ALEXANDER JOSEPH DAVID/Examiner, Art Unit 2938
/RICHARD EDGAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2931