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 .
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 (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 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.
Claims 1-9, 13, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mills (5,938,262) in view of Selle (6,164,882), further in view of Johnson et al. (US 2015/0061319).
Mills discloses a sliding deck (22,24,26) on a truck carbo box (12) such that a deck assembly (26) is movable into and at least a portion out of the truck cargo box, as shown in Figures 1-6.
In reference to claim 7, the sliding deck comprises a bedslide assembly frame (22,24) attached to the truck cargo box such that the deck assembly (26) moves relative to the bedslide assembly frame (22,24), as shown in Figures 1, 5, and 6. The bed assembly frame (22,24) is formed of rail (44) and rail supports (46), as shown in Figures 5 and 6.
However, Mills does not disclose the specifics of the deck assembly and the spring.
Selle teaches forming a deck assembly from at least one longitudinally extending plank (16) and at least one longitudinally extending accessory track (28), as shown in Figures 1-5. The at least one accessory track (28) includes a longitudinally extending opening (48), a track channel located adjacent the opening, a first rail (50) located adjacent one side of the opening, a second rail (52) located adjacent an opposed side of the opening (48), and at least one plank channel that receives a portion of the at least one plank (16), as shown in Figure 5. A slider (74) has a first rail channel (90) and a second rail channel (92), as shown in Figures 4 and 5. The first rail channel (90) receives and is positionable along the first rail and the second channel (92) receives and is positionable along the second rail, as shown in Figure 5. The slider (74) includes an attachment point (76), as shown in Figure 4.
In reference to claim 2, the deck assembly comprises a plurality of longitudinally extending planks (16), as shown in Figure 1.
In reference to claim 3, the deck assembly comprises a plurality of longitudinally extending accessory tracks (28), as shown in Figure 1.
In reference to claim 4, each accessory track (28) includes a second plank channel that receives a portion of another longitudinally extending plank (16), as shown in Figures 1 and 5.
In reference to claim 5, the slider is one of a plurality of sliders since the system is disclosed for securing multiple snowmobiles, as disclosed on lines 6-8 of column 1.
In reference to claim 6, each slider is positionable along one of the tracks, as shown in Figure 1.
In reference to claim 8, a partition (60) is attachable to the slider (74), as shown in Figures 1-5.
In reference to claims 9 and 14, the attachment point (72) on the slider is a bolt, as shown in Figure 2.
Johnson et al. teaches providing a spring (166) to bias a slider (164) towards the rail of a track (30), as shown in Figure 16. The rail channel receives and is positionable along the rail, as shown in Figure 16.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to:
form the deck assembly of Mills with the plank, accessory track, and slider construction, as taught by Selle, with a reasonable expectation for success to provide a tie-down mechanism for a snowmobile; and,
provide a spring to bias the slider toward the rail of the accessory track, as taught by Johnson et al., with a reasonable expectation for success to more securely and quickly lock the slider in position along the track.
Claims 10-12, 15, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mills (5,938,262) in view of Selle (6,164,882).
Mills discloses a sliding deck (22,24,26) on a truck carbo box (12) such that a deck assembly (26) is movable into and at least a portion out of the truck cargo box, as shown in Figures 1-6.
However, Mills does not disclose the specifics of the deck assembly.
Selle teaches forming a deck assembly from at least one plank (16) and at least one accessory track (28), as shown in Figures 1-5. The at least one accessory track (28) includes an opening (48), a track channel located adjacent the opening, and at least one rail (50) located adjacent one side of the opening, as shown in Figure 5.
In reference to claim 11, the at least one accessory track (28) includes a second rail (52) located adjacent an opposed side of the opening, as shown in Figure 5.
In reference to claim 12, the at least one accessory track (28) includes at least one plank channel that receives a portion of the at least one plank (16), as shown in Figure 5.
In reference to claims 15 and 20, the at least one accessory track (28) is configured to receive at least one securement structure selected from a slider (74) and a stud (76) that is movable within the at least one accessory track (28), as shown in Figure 5.
In reference to claim 17, the accessory track deck includes a plurality of accessory tracks (28), as shown in Figure 1. Each accessory track (28) includes a longitudinally extending opening (48), a track channel, a first rail (50) located adjacent one side of the longitudinally extending opening, and a second rail (52) located adjacent an opposed side of the longitudinally extending opening, as shown in Figures 1-5.
In reference to claim 18, the deck assembly includes at least one plank (16) adjacent to an accessory track (28), as shown in Figures 1-5. The accessory track (28) has a plank channel that receives a portion of the plank (16), as shown in Figure 5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the deck assembly of Mills with the plank, accessory track, and slider construction, as taught by Selle, with a reasonable expectation for success to provide a tie-down mechanism for a snowmobile
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Mills (5,938,262) and Selle (6,164,882), as applied to claim 10, in view of Johnson et al. (US 2015/0061319).
Mills, as modified, does not disclose the cap.
Johnson et al. teaches providing an accessory track cap (C) that includes downwardly depending legs positionable within a track channel to cover the opening of the track (30), as shown in Figure 23.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to provide an accessory track cap to cover the opening the accessory track of Mills, as modified, as taught by Johnson et al., with a reasonable expectation for success to prevent fouling of the track.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 GREGORY A BLANKENSHIP whose telephone number is (571)272-6656. The examiner can normally be reached 7-4:30.
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 Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5500. 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.
GREGORY A. BLANKENSHIP
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3612
/GREGORY A BLANKENSHIP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612 March 13, 2026