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
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 without traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 1/14/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-19 are hereby withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the lock member to lock the accessory to the base plate of claim 12 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. 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. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-13, 20-23 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 4, and 20 all recites “to form a base plate” (newly added) which lacks antecedent basis in the claims because in each of claims 1, 4, and 20, “A base plate” (claims 1 and 4) and “a base plate” (claim 20) are previously recited on line 1. If applicant changes the language to “form the base plate” the claims would still be indefinite where additional structure is recited. That is, for example, in claim 20 the recitation would still cause an issue of indefiniteness because the method of forming a base plate (line 1) additionally includes “attaching a support frame” such that the recitation that only attaching the first and second member to each other in an overlapping arrangement forms the base plate would not follow.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: the structures by which a lock member (button 40) allows the accessory to be locked to the base plate. The button (40) alone does not provide sufficient structure to perform the task.
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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 7-9, 13, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rutman et al. ‘363 in view of Hargrove (4990049).
For claim 1, Rutman et al. (2023/0112363) discloses a base plate (20, FIG.4) for an accessory attachment system, comprising:
a first member (20, FIG.4) made from a first material;
a second member (20, FIG.4) made from a second material,
wherein the first and second members are attached to each other in an overlapping arrangement to form a base plate (20, FIG.4); and
wherein at least one of the first and second members include a plurality of apertures,
wherein the plurality of apertures comprises at least mounting apertures (24) and power connection apertures (60) configured to interface with an accessory;
wherein the base plate has an outwardly facing surface (upper surface in FIG.4) including the mounting apertures (24) and the power connection apertures (60) and inwardly facing surface opposite the outwardly facing surface (see lowermost surface in FIG.4).
PNG
media_image1.png
246
336
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
329
389
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Rutman et al. disclose a desire for the baseplate to transport accessories that vary based on the tasks the user performs at the jobsite ([0003]) where a PHOSITA understands that some accessories are heavier than others. Rutman et al. lack a support frame as recited for the baseplate.
Hargove ‘049 teaches a base plate (62) having a first member (62) including a support frame (58,60) attached thereto; the support frame comprising a ladder structure having at least first and second rails (58,58) and a plurality of cross members (60,60) spaced apart from each other and extending between the first and the second rails; wherein the first rail is attached along one edge of the base plate and the second rail is attached along an opposite edge.
PNG
media_image3.png
269
771
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided on a lower surface of the bottom plate of the base plate Rutman et al. ‘363 a ladder structure support frame as taught by Hargrove in order to add strength and stiffness to the base plate so that the baseplate can adequately support heavier accessories.
For claim 20, Rutman et al. ‘363 inherently disclose the method recited.
For claims 2 and 21, the first material is the same as the second material.
For claim 3, the first material and the second material comprise metal (MPEP 608.02 IX).
For claim 8, the first member comprises a top plate (FIG.4) and the second member comprises a bottom plate (FIG.4) that is fixed to the top plate.
For claim 9, the top plate includes a first set of mounting apertures (24) and a first set of power connection apertures (60), and wherein the bottom plate includes a second set of mounting apertures (24, [0048]) and a second set of power connection apertures (60, FIG.4),
wherein the first and second sets of mounting apertures are aligned with each other, and
wherein the first and second sets of power connection apertures are aligned with each other when the top and bottom plates are attached to each other.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rutman et al. ‘363 as applied above, in view of Masanek, Jr. (10518714).
For claim 10, Rutman et al. ‘363 provide the top plate and the bottom plate both include mounting apertures that are aligned with each other, and wherein the top plate and the bottom plate both include power connection apertures that are aligned with each other.
Rutman et al. ‘363 fail to provide recessed mounting pockets within which the apertures are provided, a feature taught by Masanek, Jr. (as seen with 218 in FIG.5). Providing a recess allows the accessory (504) to sit flush with the engaging surface (206).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the apertures of Rutman et al. ‘363 within recesses as taught by Masanek, Jr. in order to allow the accessory to sit level with a surface of the base plate.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rutman et al. ‘363 as applied above in view of Reid (2384965).
For claim 11, Rutman et al. ‘363 lack the recited spot welding of the top and bottom plates.
Reid teaches a method of assembly of a wall using a plurality of panels (10) to be welded to each other in an overlapped relation by spot welding (Page 2, Col 2, lines 4-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided spot welds as taught by Reid for attachment of the top and bottom plates of Rutman et al. ‘363 in order to permit the attachment operation to be performed quickly and cheaply and further to have placed the welds at least in the recessed pockets to aid in aesthetics of the base plate.
Claim 12, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rutman et al. ‘363 in view of Rutman et al. ‘747 (2024/0217447).
For claim 12, Rutman et al. ‘747 teaches a base plate having a plurality of apertures which include a plurality of locking apertures configured to receive a lock member.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided in addition to and separate from the apertures present on the base plate of Rutman et al. ‘363 a plurality of locking apertures as taught by Rutman et al. ‘747 in order to accommodate part of a locking assembly.
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rutman et al. ‘363 as applied above in view of Calvin et al. (9139141).
Rutman et al. as applied above disclose the support frame comprises a ladder structure having at least first and second rails and a plurality of cross members spaced apart from each other and extending between the first and the second rails.
For claims 22 and 23, Rutman et al. as modified, lacks a plurality of bearings that are attached to the first rail and the second rail such that the plurality of bearings extends outwardly of the base plate and the step of attaching bearings to the first rail and the second rail such that the bearings extend outwardly of the base plate.
Calvin et al. teach a side mountable bearing for a slidable frame assembly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided a plurality of side mountable bearings as taught by Calvin et al. for use attached to the first and second rails of the support frame of the base plate of Rutman et al. and extending outwardly therefrom in order to allow the base plate of Ruthman et al. to slide for easier access.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rutman et al. ‘363 as applied above in view of Myrick (6890138).
Rutman et al. (2023/0112363) discloses a base plate (20, FIG.4) for an accessory attachment system, comprising:
a first member (20, FIG.4) made from a first material;
a second member (20, FIG.4) made from a second material,
wherein the first and second members are attached to each other in an overlapping arrangement (as seen in FIG.4); and
wherein at least one of the first and second members include a plurality of apertures,
wherein the plurality of apertures comprises at least mounting apertures (24) and power connection apertures (60) configured to interface with an accessory.
PNG
media_image1.png
246
336
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
329
389
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Rutman et al. ‘363 disclose the base plate including both the first and second member being metal but fails to provide one of the first and second materials different from plastic as recited.
Myrick (6890138) teaches a base plate (100) that may be made of any one of various materials such as urethane, metal, aluminum, wood, rubber, various polymers, and so on. The material will depend in many instances at least in part on intended use and desired attributes such as the vehicle in which the base plate is used. (Col 4, lines 5-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided one the first and second materials of Rutman et al. ‘363 from any number of various materials as taught by Myrick including plastic as an obvious material expedient in order to gain the specific properties of the material including, for example, making the baseplate lighter in weight, more corrosion resistant, or easier or cheaper to manufacture. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination since the court has held that the use of a different material is obvious over that of the prior art if it performs the same function. See MPEP 2144.07 and also Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) as amended 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.
With regard to the drawings and 112 rejection of claim 12, applicant states Figure 2 shows the locking mechanism comprising a button 40 and that paragraph [0058] discloses the button 40 is wedge shaped (tapering) to provide a locking effect. The examiner can find no support for this assertion. Examiner is not persuaded that the claim includes enough structure to allow the button to perform the function of locking the structure. The drawing objection and 112 rejection set forth above is maintained.
With regard to the prior art rejections, for claim 4, applicant argues against Myrick alone stating the reference is directed to forming a single plate from one material and that there is no disclosure or suggestion of using two different materials to make a unified base plate as recited.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the instant rejection, examiner notes the base reference Rutman et al. discloses a base plate of two materials where Myrick is being used only to teach the use of a plastic material.
With regard to claim 6, applicant argues the combination rejection of Rutman et al. and Hargrove cannot be sustained because the ladder structure of Hargrove does not provide any strength or stiffness to the cargo liner 38 that forms the base plate of the bed. However, examiner identified 62 as the base plate and not 38. Examiner asserts that the ladder structure of Hargrove does indeed provide strength and stiffness to the base plate 62 as set forth above. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection is hereby maintained.
For claim 11, applicant argues there is no evidence that links an improved aesthetic appearance to having spot welds in pocket areas. Examiner is not persuaded by this argument. Common sense teaches that providing welds in recessed areas allows the welds to be at least somewhat obscured or hidden from view, just as a seam in a pocket is hidden from view. Examiner is allowed to use common sense as the teaching as set forth above. The rejection is maintained.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Huber (2014/0117028), WO 2023104088, and Lewit et al. (2017/0239916) all disclose floors, pallets, or supporting surfaces (base plates) made of composite materials with layers of metal and plastic.
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 HILARY L GUTMAN whose telephone number is 571.272.6662. 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, PAUL DICKSON can be reached on 571.272.7742. 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 3614