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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Comments
The text of those sections of Title 35, US Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element T should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election of Species A (figures 1-4 embodiment) in the reply filed on 10/10/25 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 28-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/10/25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heider et al. (5,664,918).
Heider teaches a securement system (embodiment of figures 2 and 3) for securing cargo items (24) in and to a cargo area of a vehicle (i.e. tractor/trailer 20+; column 2, lines 40-45). The securement system includes an elongated support rail 22 (column 2, lines 66-67) mounted at a side of the cargo area of the motor vehicle defining an "inner wall" as very broadly claimed. The elongated support rail extends along at least a portion of a length of the wall element (figure 1) and supports a cargo restraint module (i.e. winch 26) that is securable to the elongated support rail at any of a plurality of positions along the elongated support rail via a set screw type element (i.e. bolt 40; column 2, lines 59-63). The cargo restraint module includes a mounting assembly (36+) configured to be releasably secured to the support rail (e.g. again via set screw/bolt element 40 as previously discussed) and a web retractor (at 58+) attached to the mounting assembly. The web retractor is configured to pay out and take up a flexible web coupled thereto as is conventional for such devices (e.g. see the last full paragraph of column 3 etc.). The mounting assembly includes a first bracket section (at 54) to which the web retractor is attached, a second bracket section (34+), and a hinge (at 44+) coupled between the first and second bracket sections. Note the construction of the pivot pin assembly (44+) provides for rotation between the relied upon first and second bracket sections (e.g. see the first full paragraph in column 3) and defines a "hinge" as very broadly claimed. The device further includes means (36+) for securing the second bracket section to the elongated support rail. The first bracket section is pivotable about the hinge "relative to the elongated support rail" as broadly claimed.
With additional regard to claim 1, rail 22 extends along a side member of the cargo vehicle cargo area from a front to a rear of the cargo area. To this end, it is deemed configured to be mounted to an inner wall of a side, front or rear of the cargo area of the motor vehicle as very broadly claimed. Moreover, in as much as the vehicle and cargo area walls per se are not a positively recited element of the instant claimed combination, the functional language relating thereto is given little patentable weight.
Claim 2, the web retractor is a ratcheting web retractor (e.g. see column 3, lines 34-44) comprising a frame having spaced-apart sidewalls (50,52), a spool (web belt receiving portion of element 58 between the sidewalls with web belt receiving slot 64; column 3, lines 28-34) coupled to and extending between the sidewalls, wherein one end of the flexible web is attached to the spool, and wherein the spool is rotatable relative to the sidewalls in a web payout direction to pay out web from the retractor and in a web take up direction to take up web in the retractor as is conventional for these types of devices.
Claim 3, the web retractor further comprises a handle (80; column 3, lines 61-64 etc.) rotatably coupled to the sidewalls (i.e. via attachment at handle receiving hole 66 - figure 3) such that the handle is rotatable between a plurality of positions relative to the sidewalls to take up the flexible web onto the spool - e.g. see column 3, lines 54-55 etc.
Claim 7, see engagement member 31+ (figure 7; column 2, lines 51-54) which is coupled to a free end of the flexible web element 28.
Claim(s) 1 and 7 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 2,436,562 (cited as entry number 1 under FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS on the IDS of 2/16/22).
EP '562 teaches a securement system (embodiment of figures 1+) for securing cargo items (e.g. 87) in and to a cargo area (82+) of a vehicle. The securement system includes an elongated support rail (e.g. element 60; see also elongated rail shown in figure 2A but not numbered) mounted at a side of the cargo area floor of the motor vehicle defining an "inner wall" as very broadly claimed. Note, for example, the vehicle floor defines a bottom "wall", and a floor mounted device on the inner side of the cargo area would define a device mounted on an inner wall as such. The elongated support rail is extendable along at least a portion of a length of a side-wall element (e.g. see figure 8A) and supports a cargo restraint module (i.e. assembly shown in figure 1 including elements 12, 13+) that is securable to the elongated support rail at any of a plurality of positions along the elongated support rail (e.g. see paragraph 0032). The cargo restraint module includes a mounting assembly (65+) configured to be releasably secured to the support rail (e.g. see paragraph 0011 etc.) and a web retractor (at 12+) attached to the mounting assembly. The web retractor is configured to pay out and take up a flexible web (e.g. 14) coupled thereto as is conventional for such devices (e.g. see paragraph 0014 etc.). The mounting assembly includes a first bracket section (including the housing of element 12) to which the web retractor is attached, a second bracket section (11+), and a hinge (pivot coupling element along axis 16 - e.g. see figures 2A and 2B) between the first and second bracket sections. The device further includes means for securing the second bracket section to the elongated support rail (e.g. elements 61, 62, 63+; see paragraphs 0048 and 0049 etc.). The first bracket section is pivotable about the hinge "relative to the elongated support rail" as broadly claimed.
With additional regard to claim 1, the relied upon elongated support rail extends along a side member of the cargo vehicle cargo area from a front portion to a rear portion of the cargo area (e.g. see figure 8A). To this end, it is deemed configured to be mounted to an inner wall of a side, front or rear of the cargo area of the motor vehicle as very broadly claimed. Moreover, in as much as the vehicle and cargo area walls per se are not a positively recited element of the instant claimed combination, the functional language relating thereto is given little patentable weight.
Claim 7, see strap end male buckle element coupled to the free end of flexible web member 14 illustrated in figure 1. Also note figure 9A and paragraph 0056 etc. Such elements define an engagement member as broadly claimed.
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.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heider et al. '5,664,918 in view of Blosser 2006/0177282.
Claim 8, Heider teaches all of the claimed features as discussed above regarding claim 1 and further teaches that the hook engagement member 31 is attached to an end of the flexible web strap 28 - e.g. see figure 7 of Heider. Heider, however, fails to teach that the engagement member defines a magnet coupled thereto for coupling engagement with the vehicle wall member.
Blosser teaches a cargo tie-down assembly wherein a hook engagement member 16+ is attached to an end of a flexible web strap 14. The hook engagement member includes a magnet (18) secured therein to facilitate attachment to ferrous materials.
In order to provide for additional coupling strength when engaging ferrous elements, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include an attached magnet in the strap end hook engagement member of Heider in view of the teachings of Blosser.
Regarding claim 8, the modified Heider device engagement member including the attached magnet could be used to magnetically couple the member to the inner wall of the cargo area of a motor vehicle (e.g. the ferrous steel sidewall or floor wall of a conventional cargo vehicle) and is deemed be arranged as broadly claimed. Additionally note, the modified device is capable of the defined wall coupling function, and in as much as the vehicle and vehicle inner wall per se are not positively recited elements of the claimed combination, the functional language relating thereto is given little patentable weight.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the second bracket section” being a ‘separate’ bracket ‘not integral’ with the winch) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HILARY L GUTMAN whose telephone number is 571.272.6662. Examiner interviews are available and can be scheduled thru 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, VIVEK KOPPIKAR can be reached on 571.272.5109. 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 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. Should you have questions, 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.
/HILARY L GUTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612B
Prosecution Insights