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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the AU application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. The AU application number to which priority is claimed is not found in the WIPO DAS system.
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 22 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.
Re: claim 22, it is unclear as to what the “main plane” is from reviewing the specification and the drawings. The examiner will interpret this as “depth” in that components of the device would extend into the space above the floor of the tray of the utility vehicle.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 objected to because of the following informalities:
“Lateral tie rail” should read “brace” as cited from the specification.
“Rail longitudinal axis” should read “spacer longitudinal axis” as cited from the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 (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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Knox et al. (US 2020/0276929).
Regarding claim 1, Knox teaches a tie rail (Fig. 2 – support system 10) separately formed and adapted to be installed in a tray of a utility vehicle, the tie rail (Fig. 2 – support system 10) including:
A. a substantially rigid and strong elongate and continuous first member (Fig. 2 – logistics track 12) on which items may be tied (Paragraph [0034] - lines 16-20);
B. at least two anchor sections (Fig. 2 – center portion 12c) on the same side of the first member (see Fig. 2) and extending transversely to a longitudinal axis of the first member (See Fig. 2), the anchor sections: ii. are formed as a continuous unitary piece (See Fig. 2) with the first member (Fig. 2 – logistics track 12); iii. have an outer end (Fig. 2 – edge 12a) remote from the first member (Fig. 2 – logistics track 12); iv. include an outer anchor point (Fig. 2 – apertures 42) at or near the outer end (Fig. 2 – edge 12a), the outer anchor point being spaced from both: the first member (Fig. 2 – logistics track 12 – Apertures (42) are on edge (12a)); and an internal anchor point (Fig. 2 – center portions 12c) located on or in the first member (Fig. 2 – logistics track 12); and
C. a pair of end members (Fig. 2 – 14 & 16) on the same side of the first member as the anchor sections (Figure 2 is presenting a “front side”), including an end member that is broader in shape (Fig. 2 – end section 16), compared to the anchor sections, are positioning in line with the longitudinal axis (See Fig. 2) and accommodates one or more end anchor points (Fig. 2 - apertures 38a).
It is noted that a vehicle is not positively claimed, however the device has the structure to perform said action. Regarding claim 2, Knox teaches wherein the first member is a rod or bar (Fig. 2 – logistics track 12) and the at least two anchor points (Fig. 2 - 42 & 12c) are separated axially along the longitudinal axis (See Annotated Fig. 2 below) of the first member (Fig. 2 – 12).
Regarding claim 3, Knox teaches further including a brace (Fig.2 – third section 18) aligned parallel to the first member (Fig. 2 – logistics track 12) and adapted to strengthen the first rail by defocusing and distributing loads applied to the first member (See Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 4, Knox teaches further including a second member (Fig. 2 – edge 12b) vertically spaced from, aligned parallel to the first member (Fig. 2 – logistics track 12) and extending linearly so that a longitudinal axis of the second member intersects each outer anchor point of each anchor section (See Figs. 2 & 13). Regarding claim 14, Knox teaches further including a plurality of spacers (Annotated Fig. 2 – spacers 12c’), each one corresponding to a lower anchor point (Annotated Fig. 2 – anchor points 12b’) of the one or more end anchor points (Fig. 2 – 38a), the spacers being adjacent the first member (Fig. 2 – logistics track 12) and adapted to be interposed between the first member (Fig. 2 – 12) and the structural substrate or the first wall (Fig. 14a – wall 90).
PNG
media_image1.png
524
531
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Knox teaches wherein each spacer (Annotated Fig. 2 – spacers 12c’) provides a gap between the first member and the structural substrate or the first wall (Fig. 14a – wall 90) for attaching hooks, straps or ropes (Paragraph [0034] - lines 16-20).
Regarding claim 16, Knox teaches wherein each spacer (Annotated Fig. 2 – spacers 12c’) is adapted to space the base (Fig. 2 – logistics track 12) of the intermediary anchor sections from the structural substrate or the first wall (Fig. 14a – wall 90), such that the anchor sections (Fig. 2 – center portion 12c) lie in an anchor section plane that is substantially parallel to the first wall plane (See Fig. 6 – logistics track (12) is raised from the third section (18)).
Regarding claim 17, Knox teaches further including a continuous, elongate element in the form of a reinforcing brace extending parallel to the longitudinal axis and a plane in which the anchor sections lie (Fig. 2 – third section 18).
Regarding claim 18, Knox teaches wherein the brace (Fig. 2 – third section 18) includes a plurality of equally spaced spacer elements (Fig. 2 – apertures 38) that provide a bulbous body surrounding corresponding spacer element apertures to strengthen the brace at locations of multiple apertures (Fig. 2 – apertures 44) (See Fig. 11). Applicant uses the term bulbous to describe (162) shown in figure 2D, the term is not being used consistent with bulbous typical definition of bulb shaped. Applicant has not claimed a function of the spacer elements merely a shape which is inconsistent with the common use of the word. These spacers are located to support portion (130) thus the claim is interpreted as meaning element to strengthen and brace.
Regarding claim 19, Knox teaches wherein each aperture (Fig. 2 – apertures 44) is adapted to be in coaxial registration with a lower anchor point (Annotated Fig. 2 – anchor points 12b’) and a threaded bore of an anchor plug (Fig. 2 – engagement devices 40).
Regarding claim 20, Knox teaches wherein the brace (Fig. 2 – third section 18) includes an elongate element bridging the spacer elements and extending between a rear end member (Fig. 2 – end section 14) and a front most anchor section (Annotated Fig. 2 – front most anchor section 12cf).
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.
Claim(s) 5-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knox et al. (US 2022/0276929). Regarding claim 5, Knox teaches wherein the first (Fig. 2 – logistics track 12) and second members (Fig. 2 – edge 12b) are integrally formed (See Fig. 2). Knox fails to teach the material from which they are formed is continuous with the end member (Fig. 2 – end section 16). The Courts have held that making known elements separable is within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Dulberg, 129 USPQ 348 (CCPA 1961) (see MPEP § 2144.04). The separation of the first and second members to the end member would be obvious to a POSITA as the replacement of the first and second members or the brace over time would be more cost efficient instead of replacing the entire object.
Regarding claim 6, Knox teaches wherein the end member (Fig. 2 – end section 16) is a front-end member that is sufficiently broad to accommodate at least two end anchor points (Fig. 2 – apertures 70, 84) that are spaced from each other in the direction of the longitudinal axis (See Fig. 2). Regarding claim 7, Knox teaches wherein the front-end member (Fig. 2 – end section 16) is adapted to be fastened to the first wall (See Fig. 3 & 14a – end section (16) is connected to vertical logistics post (24) which is connected to the wall (90)) by the end anchor points (Fig. 2 – apertures 70, 84) in the form of at least 2 anchor points that are spaced by a distance d (Annotated Fig. 2 – Dist.) in the direction of the longitudinal axis (Fig. 2 – apertures 70, 84).
Regarding claim 8, Knox teaches wherein the front-end member (Fig. 2 - end section 16) is substantially broader in the direction d (Annotated Fig. 2 – Direction D) than each of the anchor sections (Fig. 2 – center portion 12c). Knox fails to teach wherein the front-end member is shaped to conform to a front portion of the first wall between a front most pillar and a front end of the vehicle. The examiner notes that these elements are not positively claimed see 112 above. Regarding claim 9, Knox teaches wherein the end members include a rear end member (Fig. 2 – end section 14) is essentially identical in shape (See Annotated Fig. 2) to each of the anchor sections (Fig. 2 – center portion 12c), being intermediary anchor sections (Fig. 2 – slots 80, 82) located between the front and rear end members (See Fig. 2).
Knox fails to teach wherein the rear end member that is adapted to be attached at or near to a rear end of the vehicle. The examiner notes that these elements are not positively claimed.
Regarding claim 10, Knox teaches wherein the front-end member (Fig. 2 – end section 16) has a lower extension that depends below the longitudinal axis (See Annotated Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Knox teaches wherein the intermediary anchor sections (Fig. 10 – slots 80, 82) each comprise: a base (Annotated Fig. 10 – base 80’, 82’) of the intermediary anchor sections through which there is centrally located a lower anchor point (Fig. 10 – slot 80, 82); an upwardly extending arm (Fig. 10 – grooves 80a, 82a); and a narrow head (Fig. 10 – grooves 80c, 82c) in which there is centrally located an upper anchor point (See Fig. 10).
PNG
media_image2.png
712
702
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Knox teaches wherein the intermediary anchor sections (Fig. 10 – slots 80, 82) comprise continuous material between the base (Annotated Fig. 10 – base 80’, 82’) of the intermediary anchor sections, through the upright arm (Fig. 10 – grooves 80a, 82a) and the head (Fig. 10 – grooves 80c, 82c).
Regarding claim 13, Knox teaches wherein the head (Fig. 10 – grooves 80c, 82c) corresponds to the outer end (Fig. 2 – edge 12a).
Knox fails to teach wherein the head has a narrower width w than the width W of the upright arm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Knox et al. to have a width of the head narrower than the width of the upright arm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Knox et al. would not operate differently with the claimed width and since the engagement devices have a larger head than the bore portion and the device would function appropriately having the claimed width. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knox et al. in view of Mac's Custom Tie-Downs [MCTD] (NPL: website - www.macscustomtiedowns.com). Regarding claim 21, Knox teaches wherein the brace (Fig. 2 – third section 18) is a unitarily formed element (See Fig. 2). Knox fails to teach wherein the brace is made from a unitary piece of material that is strong and resists flexing, compression and extension along a spacer longitudinal axis. However, MCTD teaches wherein the brace is made from a unitary piece of material that is strong and resists flexing, compression and extension along a spacer longitudinal axis (NPL – Fig. 1 – Aluminum). Knox and MCTD are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of logistics tracks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Knox’s art with those of MCTD’s aluminum in order to provide for a more lightweight and resistive system (i.e., aluminum is a lightweight metal and is known for being corrosion resistant). Motivation to combine Knox with MCTD comes from knowledge well known in the art.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 20120251261 A1).
Re: claim 22, Liu et al teaches a tie rail mount (Fig. 2) for a utility vehicle (Fig. 1) having a tray (12) and side walls (where 14 is) and adapted to extend in a main plane (See Fig. 1 and 2), the tie rail mount comprising:
a broad front end bracket (Fig. 2 – 16);
a bar (Fig. 4 - 48, 48’, 48”, …) extending substantially the full length of the tie rail mount;
a plurality of spaced vertical arms (Fig. 4 – 46, 46’, 46”, …) located intermediate the length of the bar (See Fig. 4), anchor or fastener points at top and/or bottom of each end bracket (Fig. 3 – 34 & 34’) and each vertical arm (Annotated Fig. 4 – anchor points – flexible anchors/fasteners such as ropes can be tied around the annotated section, thus making it an anchor/fastener point);
wherein:
the vertical arms (Fig. 4 – 46, 46’, 46”, …) extend normal to the bar (Fig. 4 - 48, 48’, 48”, …) in the main plane (See Fig. 4);
the vertical arms (Fig. 4 – 46, 46’, 46”, …) all extend on the same side of the bar (See Fig. 4);
the bar (Fig. 4 - 48, 48’, 48”, …) is adapted to extend between wall posts of the tray (Fig. 1 - 12) of the utility vehicle (See Fig. 1) so that there is a gap (Annotated Fig. 3 – gap) for ties to be inserted or wrapped-around the bar;
the vertical arms number two or more (Fig. 4 – 46, 46’, 46”, …);
the tie rail mount comprises a brace (Fig. 2 - 28) that is adapted to extend laterally into an interior of the utility vehicle tray transverse to the main plane (See Figs. 1 & 2); and
a spacer longitudinal axis (Annotated Fig. 2 – spacer longitudinal axis) of the brace is substantially parallel to, and spaced from, a bar longitudinal axis (Annotated Fig. 2 – bar longitudinal axis) of the bar.
Liu et al is silent on the vertical arms are spaced whereby to be adapted to be positioned to correspond to wall posts of the utility vehicle tray side wall.
The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
PNG
media_image3.png
629
699
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
428
534
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
306
246
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Re: claim 1, the applicant has made clear that a vehicle is not positively claimed and the examiner has noted that the device would function being in a utility vehicle. The examiner would like to clarify that even if the vehicle was positively recited, there exists a number of videos on youtube, such as Z-track installation tutorial - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66v0FVxBITg), that showcase E-tracks or similar being installed to a pickup truck, which would be considered a light commercial utility vehicle.
The applicant argues that the anchor points of Knox are not adapted to attach to an internal wall of the cargo compartment. The examiner disagrees in that the anchor points are attached to an internal wall of the cargo compartment by being integral with the first member which is attached to the end member which is attached to the wall; thus, the anchor points are attached to an internal wall of the cargo compartment.
The applicant additionally argues that Knox’s components 12, 20 are separate and not unitarily formed. The examiner agrees; however, the mapping of the claim shows that components 42and 12c are a continuous unitary piece with the first member (12).
The applicant additionally argues that the anchor points of Knox are not adapted to be received in the internal recess. The examiner disagrees in that the anchor points are adapted to be received in the internal recess by being integral with the first member which is attached to the end member which is attached to the wall, which has an internal recess (the vertical logistics post can be interpreted as an internal recess of the internal wall).
The applicant argues that elements 12 and 20 do not contain anchor points that could answer to the description (iv.) recited in claim 1. The examiner points to the rejection of the claim 1, in that the outer edge is mapped to.
The applicant additionally argues that Knox does not teach a pair of end members on the same side of the first member. The examiner disagrees and has mapped this limitation within the rejection of claim 1.
Re: claims 2-4 and 14-20, the applicant merely states that the references do not disclose a feature of the claim or that it is non-obvious without reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Youtube video referenced in Response to Arguments - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66v0FVxBITg – Discloses the installment of a Z-track to a pick-up truck bed.
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 PHILIP C ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-3421. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30 - 4:00 CT.
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, Amy R Weisberg can be reached at 5712705500. 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.
/PHILIP CHARLES ADAMS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612