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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-20 are pending. All claims are eligible for examination. Applicant’s claim to domestic priority from provisional application 63/330,975 filed 14 April 2022 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andre et al. (US 10029738 hereinafter Andre) in view of Fink et al. (US 2006/0024146 hereinafter Fink).
With respect to claim 1, Andre discloses a grounds maintenance vehicle (in figure 1, Andre discloses a riding lawnmower that reads on a grounds maintenance vehicle) comprising:
a frame (in figure 1, element 110 is a frame or chassis) carrying a prime mover (in figure 1, element 104 is an engine, which reads on a prime mover) and extending along a longitudinal axis between a front end and a rear end (in figure 1, the frame occupies space and as such extends along axes; for the purposes of this analysis, the front of the mower is a front and the rear of the mower is a rear end, with the distance between them defining a longitudinal axis);
ground engaging members operatively attached to the frame (in figure 1, Andre discloses wheel 106a which reads on a ground engaging member, as do wheels 108a and 108b), wherein at least one of the ground engaging members is powered by the prime mover to propel the frame over a ground surface (in lines 18-19 of column 4, Andre discloses that the drive wheels are powered by the engine or prime mover);
an implement attached to the frame (in lines 49-54 of column 4, Andre discloses an implement attached to the frame, in this case a lawn mower cutting deck);
a cover positioned over at least a portion of the implement (in figure 1, Andre discloses floor portion 140, which reads on a cover and is positioned over a portion of the implement), wherein the cover defines an inner surface, an outer surface opposite the inner surface (in figure 1, Andre discloses floor portion 140, which has a side disposed towards the ground that reads on an inner surface and a side disposed towards the sky, which reads on an outer surface).
While Andre discloses a number of openings extending between the inner and outer surfaces, they are not relied upon to render obvious to limitations of the claim. Andre does not disclose
an opening extending between the inner and outer surfaces [as subsequently used in the claim]; and a retention apparatus operably coupled to the frame and corresponding to the opening, wherein the retention apparatus comprises a head portion and a biasing member, wherein the biasing member is configured to be biased towards the head portion, wherein the retention apparatus extends through the opening such that the head portion and the biasing member apply force to each of the opposite surfaces to restrict movement of the cover relative to the frame.
However, Fink discloses an opening extending between the inner and outer surfaces (in figure 2, Fink discloses a panel 5 that has opposite sides, the one facing towards the viewer reads on an outer surface while the surface facing into the page reads on an inner surface); and a retention apparatus (in figure 2, Fink discloses bolt 2, which reads on a retention apparatus) operably coupled to the frame (in figure 2, Fink discloses housing 1, which reads on a frame) and corresponding to the opening (in figure 2, Fink discloses the bolt or retention apparatus extending through the opening), wherein the retention apparatus comprises a head portion and a biasing member (in figure 2, Fink discloses the head of the bolt – marked as 2 – which reads on a head portion; housing 1 abuts the inner surface when bolt 2 is tightened down and reads on a biasing member; figure 5 of Fink discloses the threads 12 of the bolt that are used to engage the bolt to the housing), wherein the biasing member is configured to be biased towards the head portion (in figure 5, Fink discloses threads that bias the housing to the head), wherein the retention apparatus extends through the opening such that the head portion and the biasing member apply force to each of the opposite surfaces to restrict movement of the cover relative to the frame (in figure 2, Fink discloses the head of bolt 2 and the housing applying force to opposite surfaces of the panel, thereby holding the housing in place with respect to the panel).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to substitute the locking keyhole bolt assembly of Fink for the floor retention system of Andre because the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. The predictable result of the substitution would be that the floor panel of Andre is securely attached to the frame of the lawnmower (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)). Note that Andre has taught a retaining system that uses tabs fitting into an opening, as detailed in figure 4, elements 150 and 154; however, in lines 5-10 of column 6, Andre says that this embodiment is not meant to provide a boundary for the embodiment of the retaining mechanism.
With respect to claim 2, Andre in view of Fink discloses the limitations of claim 1. Andre in view of Fink further discloses the opening defines a keyhole shape, wherein the keyhole shape of the opening defines a head opening and a slot opening extending from the head opening (in figure 2, Fink discloses that the opening through which the bolt extends is keyhole shaped, wherein the head opening is above the slot in figure 2 – the bolt 2 is resting in the slot portion of the opening in figure 2).
With respect to claim 3, Andre in view of Fink discloses the limitations of claim 1. Andre in view of Fink further discloses a first portion of the opening is configured to permit passage of the head portion therethrough and deny passage of the biasing member (in the abstract and figure 2, Fink discloses that the head of the bolt can pass through the upper, wider part of the hole while the housing or biasing member cannot), wherein a second portion of the opening is configured to deny passage of both the head portion and the biasing member (in figure 2 and the abstract, Fink discloses that the lower part of the opening cannot be traversed by either the head of the bolt or the housing/biasing member), and wherein the second portion of the opening extends from the first portion of the opening (in figure 2, Fink discloses that the larger and smaller portions of the opening are contiguous).
With respect to claim 8, Andre in view of Fink discloses the limitations of claim 1. Andre in view of Fink further discloses the head portion of the retention apparatus is fixedly coupled to a frame bar of the frame (in figure 2, Fink discloses the bolt being affixed to the housing – while the bolt of Fink can still tighten and loosen, this is akin to figure 3 of applicant’s disclosure where the bolt is affixed to frame bar 112 but can still rotate).
With respect to claim 10, Andre in view of Fink discloses the limitations of claim 1. Andre in view of Fink further discloses the cover comprises one of a slot and a tab and the frame comprises the other of the slot and the tab, wherein the slot is configured to receive the tab to restrict movement of the cover in at least two orthogonal dimensions (in figure 4 and the associated discussion in lines 13-28 of column 6, Andre discloses tab and slot securement devices and teaches that different numbers – one, two, or three are all suggested – and different types can be intermixed).
With respect to claim 11, Andre in view of Fink discloses the limitations of claim 1. Andre in view of Fink further discloses the cover extends between a first end region proximate the front end of the frame and a second end region rearward of the first end region, wherein the opening is located proximate the first end region of the cover (in lines 2-5 of column 6, Andre discloses that the fasteners can be provided at various locations of the platform 20, which includes the forward locations, even if the rear location is shown in the illustrated embodiment).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andre in view of Fink as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Biernath et al. (US 5839263 hereinafter Biernath).
With respect to claim 4, Andre in view of Fink discloses the limitations of claim 1. Andre in view of Fink does not disclose the cover comprises a ridge surrounding at least a first portion of the opening and extending from the outer surface of the cover, wherein the ridge restricts movement of the head portion from a second portion of the opening to the first portion of the opening when the head portion is in contact with the outer surface of the cover.
However, Biernath, which is in the field of lawnmowers, discloses a cover comprising a ridge surrounding at least a first portion of the opening and extending from the outer surface of the cover, wherein the ridge restricts movement of the head portion from a second portion of the opening to the first portion of the opening when the head portion is in contact with the outer surface of the cover (in figure 7b, Biernath discloses dovetail slot 31 and countersunk bolts 90; in figure 7c, the bolt is shown holding items 22 and 101 together, with the head flush with the surface of element 22; as related to the claim the surrounding surface of element 22 reads on a ridge; the first portion of the opening is rightward part of the dovetail slot 31; element 22 corresponds to a cover; the top of the T of the dovetail slot reads on the first portion of the opening – see also figure 7a which shows the top of the T as quite a bit larger than the descending portion).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to substitute the countersunk bolt hole of Biernath for the flush bolt-hole of Andre in view of Fink because the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. The predictable result of the combination would be an attachment seam between the bolt and the flooring that is less likely to snag material on a protruding bolt head (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Claims 5-7, 9, 12, 13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andre in view of Fink as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kwater (US 4362074).
With respect to claim 5, Andre in view of Fink discloses the limitations of claim 1. Andre in view of Fink does not disclose the retention apparatus further comprises a cap attached to the biasing member, wherein the biasing member is operably connected between the frame and the cap and configured to force the cap away from the frame and towards the head portion, wherein the cap is configured to contact the inner surface of the cover.
However, Kwater discloses a cap attached to the biasing member, wherein the biasing member is operably connected between the frame and the cap and configured to force the cap away from the frame and towards the head portion, wherein the cap is configured to contact the inner surface of the cover (in figure 3, Kwater discloses a locking nut 95 secured by screw-threads; the locking nut abuts the surface above it and is too big to pass therethrough – this surface corresponds to the claim’s inner surface; the locking nut corresponds to the claim’s cap; the biasing member here is spring 47 in conjunction with element 26).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to combine the locking nut and spring of Kwater with the securement mechanism of Andre in view of Fink because each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. The predictable result of the combination would be a more securely fastened bolt that is less likely become undone thanks to the locking nut and spring (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
With respect to claim 6, Andre in view of Fink and Kwater discloses the limitations of claim 5. Andre in view of Fink and Kwater further discloses the retention apparatus further comprises a shank extending from the head portion, wherein the cap is biased to move towards the head portion along an axis defined by the shank (in figure 5 and the abstract, Fink discloses that the bolt is at least partly a shank; the locknut of Kwater moves along the length of the shank of a threaded bolt in figure 3).
With respect to claim 7, Andre in view of Fink and Kwater discloses the limitations of claim 5. Andre in view of Fink and Kwater further discloses the retention apparatus further comprises an elongated member including the head portion and a shank extending from the head portion, wherein the cap defines an opening through which the shank is positioned and the cap is configured to move relative to the elongated member along the shank, wherein the opening of the cap is configured to deny passage of the head portion (in figure 5 and the abstract, Fink discloses that the bolt is at least partly a shank; the locknut of Kwater moves along the length of the shank of a threaded bolt in figure 3; the locking nut has an aperture therethrough that the shank portion of a bolt can pass but not the head portion, as shown in figure 3 of Kwater).
With respect to claim 9, Andre in view of Fink discloses the limitations of claim 1. Andre in view of Fink does not disclose he biasing member comprises a spring.
However, Kwater discloses a biasing member that comprises a spring (in figure 3, Kwater discloses a locking nut 95 secured by screw-threads; the locking nut abuts the surface above it and is too big to pass therethrough – this surface corresponds to the claim’s inner surface; the locking nut corresponds to the claim’s cap; the biasing member here is spring 47 in conjunction with element 26).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to combine the locking nut and spring of Kwater with the securement mechanism of Andre in view of Fink because each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. The predictable result of the combination would be a more securely fastened bolt that is less likely become undone thanks to the locking nut and spring (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
With respect to claim 12, Andre discloses a grounds maintenance vehicle (in figure 1, Andre discloses a riding lawnmower that reads on a grounds maintenance vehicle) comprising:
a frame (in figure 1, element 110 is a frame or chassis) carrying a prime mover (in figure 1, element 104 is an engine, which reads on a prime mover) and extending along a longitudinal axis between a front end and a rear end (in figure 1, the frame occupies space and as such extends along axes; for the purposes of this analysis, the front of the mower is a front and the rear of the mower is a rear end, with the distance between them defining a longitudinal axis);
ground engaging members operatively attached to the frame (in figure 1, Andre discloses wheel 106a which reads on a ground engaging member, as do wheels 108a and 108b), wherein at least one of the ground engaging members is powered by the prime mover to propel the frame over a ground surface (in lines 18-19 of column 4, Andre discloses that the drive wheels are powered by the engine or prime mover);
a cover positioned over at least a portion of the implement (in figure 1, Andre discloses floor portion 140, which reads on a cover and is positioned over a portion of the implement), wherein the cover defines an inner surface, an outer surface opposite the inner surface (in figure 1, Andre discloses floor portion 140, which has a side disposed towards the ground that reads on an inner surface and a side disposed towards the sky, which reads on an outer surface).
Andre does not disclose a keyhole opening, wherein the keyhole opening defines a head opening and a slot opening extending from the head opening; and a retention apparatus operably coupled to the frame and corresponding to the keyhole opening, wherein the retention apparatus comprises an elongated member and a cap, wherein the elongated member comprises a head portion and a shank extending from the head portion, wherein the cap is configured to move relative to the elongated member along the shank, wherein the head opening of the keyhole opening is configured to permit passage of the head portion therethrough and deny passage of the cap, and wherein the slot opening of the keyhole opening is configured to deny passage of both the head portion and the cap.
However, Fink discloses an opening extending between the inner and outer surfaces (in figure 2, Fink discloses a panel 5 that has opposite sides, the one facing towards the viewer reads on an outer surface while the surface facing into the page reads on an inner surface); and a retention apparatus (in figure 2, Fink discloses bolt 2, which reads on a retention apparatus) operably coupled to the frame (in figure 2, Fink discloses housing 1, which reads on a frame) and corresponding to the opening (in figure 2, Fink discloses the bolt or retention apparatus extending through the opening), wherein the retention apparatus comprises a head portion and a biasing member (in figure 2, Fink discloses the head of the bolt – marked as 2 – which reads on a head portion; housing 1 abuts the inner surface when bolt 2 is tightened down and reads on a biasing member; figure 5 of Fink discloses the threads 12 of the bolt that are used to engage the bolt to the housing), wherein the biasing member is configured to be biased towards the head portion (in figure 5, Fink discloses threads that bias the housing to the head), wherein the retention apparatus extends through the opening such that the head portion and the biasing member apply force to each of the opposite surfaces to restrict movement of the cover relative to the frame (in figure 2, Fink discloses the head of bolt 2 and the housing applying force to opposite surfaces of the panel, thereby holding the housing in place with respect to the panel).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to substitute the locking keyhole bolt assembly of Fink for the floor retention system of Andre because the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. The predictable result of the substitution would be that the floor panel of Andre is securely attached to the frame of the lawnmower (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)). Note that Andre has taught a retaining system that uses tabs fitting into an opening, as detailed in figure 4, elements 150 and 154; however, in lines 5-10 of column 6, Andre says that this embodiment is not meant to provide a boundary for the embodiment of the retaining mechanism.
Kwater discloses the retention apparatus comprises an elongated member and a cap, wherein the elongated member comprises a head portion and a shank extending from the head portion, wherein the cap is configured to move relative to the elongated member along the shank, wherein the head opening of the keyhole opening is configured to permit passage of the head portion therethrough and deny passage of the cap, and wherein the slot opening of the keyhole opening is configured to deny passage of both the head portion and the cap (in figure 3, Kwater discloses a locking nut 95 secured by screw-threads; the locking nut abuts the surface above it and is too big to pass therethrough – this surface corresponds to the claim’s inner surface and either the larger or smaller opening of the keyhole; the locking nut corresponds to the claim’s cap; the biasing member here is spring 47 in conjunction with element 26).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to combine the locking nut and spring of Kwater with the securement eyehole opening of Andre in view of Fink because each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. The predictable result of the combination would be a more securely fastened bolt that is less likely become undone thanks to the locking nut and spring (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
With respect to claim 13, Andre in view of Fink and Kwater disclose the limitations of claim 12. Andre in view of Fink and Kwater further discloses the cap is configured to be biased towards the head portion, wherein the cap is configured to apply force to the inner surface of the cover proximate the slot opening and the head portion is configured to apply force to the outer surface of the cover proximate the slot opening to restrict movement of the cover relative to the frame (in figure 3, Kwater discloses a locking nut 95 secured by screw-threads; the locking nut abuts the surface above it and is too big to pass therethrough – this surface corresponds to the claim’s inner surface; the locking nut corresponds to the claim’s cap; the biasing member here is spring 47 in conjunction with element 26).
With respect to claim 15, Andre in view of Fink and Kwater disclose the limitations of claim 12. Andre in view of Fink and Kwater further discloses the retention apparatus further comprises a spring, wherein the spring is operably connected to the cap to bias the cap towards the head portion (in figure 3, Kwater shows a spring as part of the biasing mechanisms that have been added to Andre in view of Fink, described above).
With respect to claim 16, Andre in view of Fink and Kwater disclose the limitations of claim 12. Andre in view of Fink and Kwater further discloses the cap is biased to move towards the head portion along an axis defined by the shank (in figure 3, Kwater discloses the nut on a threaded bolt; rotation of the nut will move it along the axis of the bolt; Fink describes the bolt used with the keyhole as partly a shank).
With respect to claim 17, Andre in view of Fink and Kwater disclose the limitations of claim 12. Andre in view of Fink and Kwater further discloses the cap defines an opening through which the shank is positioned, wherein the opening of the cap is configured to deny passage of the head portion (in figure 5 and the abstract, Fink discloses that the bolt is at least partly a shank; the locking nut of Kwater moves along the length of the shank of a threaded bolt in figure 3; the locking nut has an aperture therethrough that the shank portion of a bolt can pass but not the head portion, as shown in figure 3 of Kwater).
With respect to claim 18, Andre in view of Fink and Kwater disclose the limitations of claim 12. Andre in view of Fink and Kwater further discloses the cover comprises one of a slot and a tab and the frame comprises the other of the slot and the tab, wherein the slot is configured to receive the tab to restrict movement of the cover in at least two orthogonal dimensions (in figure 4 and the associated discussion in lines 13-28 of column 6, Andre discloses tab and slot securement devices and teaches that different numbers – one, two, or three are all suggested – and different types can be intermixed).
With respect to claim 19, Andre in view of Fink and Kwater disclose the limitations of claim 12. Andre in view of Fink and Kwater further discloses the cover extends between a first end region proximate the front end of the frame and a second end region rearward of the first end region, wherein the keyhole opening is located proximate the first end region of the cover (in lines 2-5 of column 6, Andre discloses that the fasteners can be provided at various locations of the platform 20, which includes the forward locations, even if the rear location is shown in the illustrated embodiment).
With respect to claim 20, Andre discloses a lawnmower (in figure 1, Andre discloses a riding lawnmower that reads on a grounds maintenance vehicle) comprising:
a frame (in figure 1, element 110 is a frame or chassis) carrying a prime mover (in figure 1, element 104 is an engine, which reads on a prime mover) and extending along a longitudinal axis between a front end and a rear end (in figure 1, the frame occupies space and as such extends along axes; for the purposes of this analysis, the front of the mower is a front and the rear of the mower is a rear end, with the distance between them defining a longitudinal axis);
ground engaging members operatively attached to the frame (in figure 1, Andre discloses wheel 106a which reads on a ground engaging member, as do wheels 108a and 108b), wherein at least one of the ground engaging members is powered by the prime mover to propel the frame over a ground surface (in lines 18-19 of column 4, Andre discloses that the drive wheels are powered by the engine or prime mover);
an implement attached to the frame (in lines 49-54 of column 4, Andre discloses an implement attached to the frame, in this case a lawn mower cutting deck);
a cover positioned over at least a portion of the implement (in figure 1, Andre discloses floor portion 140, which reads on a cover and is positioned over a portion of the implement), wherein the cover defines an inner surface, an outer surface opposite the inner surface (in figure 1, Andre discloses floor portion 140, which has a side disposed towards the ground that reads on an inner surface and a side disposed towards the sky, which reads on an outer surface).
Andre does not disclose a keyhole opening, wherein the keyhole opening defines a head opening and a slot opening extending from the head opening; and a retention apparatus operably coupled to the frame and corresponding to the keyhole opening, wherein the retention apparatus comprises:
an elongated member comprising a head portion and a shank extending from the head portion, wherein the head opening of the keyhole opening is configured to permit passage of the head portion therethrough and the slot opening of the keyhole opening is configured to deny passage of the head portion;
a cap defining an opening through which the shank of the elongated member is positioned such that the cap is configured to move relative to the elongated member along the shank, wherein the head opening of the keyhole opening is configured to deny passage of the cap and the slot opening of the keyhole opening is configured to deny passage of the cap; and
a spring operably connected to the cap to bias the cap towards the head portion;
wherein the retention apparatus extends through the keyhole opening such that the cap is configured to apply force to the inner surface of the cover proximate the slot opening and the head portion is configured to apply force to the outer surface of the cover proximate the slot opening to restrict movement of the cover relative to the frame.
However, Fink discloses a keyhole opening, wherein the keyhole opening defines a head opening and a slot opening extending from the head opening; and a retention apparatus operably coupled to the frame and corresponding to the keyhole opening (in figure 2, Fink discloses a panel 5 that has opposite sides, the one facing towards the viewer reads on an outer surface while the surface facing into the page reads on an inner surface), wherein the retention apparatus comprises:
an elongated member comprising a head portion and a shank extending from the head portion (in figure 5, Fink discloses a bolt with a shank portion and an head portion), wherein the head opening of the keyhole opening is configured to permit passage of the head portion therethrough and the slot opening of the keyhole opening is configured to deny passage of the head portion (in figure 2, Fink discloses a keyhole opening that allows passage of the head of the bolt through the larger portion of the opening and denies passage of the head of the bolt through the smaller portion of the opening).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to substitute the locking keyhole bolt assembly of Fink for the floor retention system of Andre because the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. The predictable result of the substitution would be that the floor panel of Andre is securely attached to the frame of the lawnmower (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)). Note that Andre has taught a retaining system that uses tabs fitting into an opening, as detailed in figure 4, elements 150 and 154; however, in lines 5-10 of column 6, Andre says that this embodiment is not meant to provide a boundary for the embodiment of the retaining mechanism.
Kwater discloses:
a cap defining an opening through which the shank of the elongated member is positioned such that the cap is configured to move relative to the elongated member along the shank, wherein the head opening of the keyhole opening is configured to deny passage of the cap and the slot opening of the keyhole opening is configured to deny passage of the cap (in figure 3, Kwater discloses a locking nut 95 secured by screw-threads; the locking nut abuts the surface above it and is too big to pass therethrough – this surface corresponds to the claim’s inner surface and either the larger or smaller opening of the keyhole; the locking nut corresponds to the claim’s cap; the biasing member here is spring 47 in conjunction with element 26); and
a spring operably connected to the cap to bias the cap towards the head portion (in figure 3, Kwater discloses a spring biasing the cap towards the head portion);
wherein the retention apparatus extends through the keyhole opening such that the cap is configured to apply force to the inner surface of the cover proximate the slot opening and the head portion is configured to apply force to the outer surface of the cover proximate the slot opening to restrict movement of the cover relative to the frame (in figure 3, Kwater discloses the locking nut is applying force to the upper/inner surface proximate the opening through which the threaded bolt runs).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to combine the locking nut and spring of Kwater with the securement eyehole opening of Andre in view of Fink because each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. The predictable result of the combination would be a more securely fastened bolt that is less likely become undone thanks to the locking nut and spring (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andre in view of Fink and Kwater as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Biernath.
With respect to claim 14, Andre in view of Fink and Kwater discloses the limitations of claim 12. Andre in view of Fink and Kwater does not disclose the cover comprises a ridge surrounding at least a first portion of the opening and extending from the outer surface of the cover, wherein the ridge restricts movement of the head portion from a second portion of the opening to the first portion of the opening when the head portion is in contact with the outer surface of the cover.
However, Biernath, which is in the field of lawnmowers, discloses a cover comprising a ridge surrounding at least a first portion of the opening and extending from the outer surface of the cover, wherein the ridge restricts movement of the head portion from a second portion of the opening to the first portion of the opening when the head portion is in contact with the outer surface of the cover (in figure 7b, Biernath discloses dovetail slot 31 and countersunk bolts 90; in figure 7c, the bolt is shown holding items 22 and 101 together, with the head flush with the surface of element 22; as related to the claim the surrounding surface of element 22 reads on a ridge; the first portion of the opening is rightward part of the dovetail slot 31; element 22 corresponds to a cover; the top of the T of the dovetail slot reads on the first portion of the opening – see also figure 7a which shows the top of the T as quite a bit larger than the descending portion).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to substitute the countersunk bolt hole of Biernath for the flush bolt-hole of Andre in view of Fink because the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. The predictable result of the combination would be an attachment seam between the bolt and the flooring that is less likely to snag material on a protruding bolt head (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS JAMES MEISLAHN whose telephone number is (703)756-1925. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 EST M-Th, M-F.
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, Joseph Rocca can be reached at (571) 272-8971. 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.
/DOUGLAS J MEISLAHN/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671