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 § 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. Claim 6 is 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. Claim 6 recites the limitation "the plurality of holes". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the “plurality of holes” will be interpreted as the “plurality of cable holes” mentioned in parent claim 2. 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. Claim s 1-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mettler ( US 20170282779 ) in view of Hutton ( US 20190270423 ) . Regarding claim 1, Mettler teaches a mount apparatus 132 for attaching a hitch-mountable device to a set of bars ( [0056], Fig. 14 ), the apparatus comprising: a base plate 102 having a front surface and a back surface each extending between a top edge and a bottom edge of the base plate and between a first lateral edge and a second lateral edge of the base plate 102 ( Figs. 6 and 11 ) ; a hook 150 being coupled to the top edge of the base plate 102 the hook 150 extending rearwardly and downwardly from the top edge ([0057], Fig. 14 ) , the hook being configured for engaging a top of the set of bars 136 ([0055], Fig. 14) to attach the base plate 102 to the bars 136 ([0057], Fig. 14) ; and a receiver hitch tube 100 being coupled to and extending forwardly from the front surface of the base plate 102 ( [0051], Fig. 14 ) . Mettler does not teach the mount apparatus attaching to a vehicle grill guard. However, Hutton teaches a bicycle carrier mountable on the upper and lower bars of a vehicle push bumper 10 ([0015] and [0017], Figs. 1-3 of Hutton). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mount apparatus of Mettler to mount on to the bars of a vehicle grill guard as Hutton teaches in order to advantageously provide an alternative mounting arrangement to hitches, trunk-mounts, and roof-mounts ([0017] of Hutton). Regarding claim 2, Mettler as modified teaches wherein the base plate 102 has a plurality of cable hole s 104 extending therethrough ([0052], Fig. 14) , the plurality of holes 104 being positioned on a lower portion of the base plate 102 (Fig. 14) , the plurality of cable hole s 104 being configured for facilitating securing a lower portion of the base plate 102 vehicle grill guard via a fastener ([0052] and [0055] ; the fasteners secure the base plate to the bars by connecting through the holes 94 to the mounting plate 90 which holds the bars) . Regarding claim 3, Mettler as modified teaches wherein the plurality of cable hole s is arranged along a vertical line extending through the base plate 102 ([0051], Fig. 14). Regarding claim 4, Mettler as modified teaches wherein a diameter of each cable hole of the plurality of cable hole s is between 0.25 inches and 0.75 inches ([0034], Fig. 3; the width of the rumble strip is approximately 12 times the length of the diameters of the cable hole s and is listed as being between 8 and 16 inches wide, giving an estimated hole diameter of 0.66 to 1.3 in.) . Regarding the limitation of the diameters of the holes being between 0.25 and 0.75 inches, see In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit 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. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cable holes to be of standardized sizes in order to facilitate a simple mounting arrangement. Regarding claim 5, Mettler as modified teaches wherein a spacing between adjacent pairs of cable holes of the plurality of cable holes is between 0.5 inches and 1.0 inches ([0034], Figs. 3 and 14; the Figures show that the spacing between holes is approximately 1.5 times the length of the diameter of each hole, using the measurements taken from the rejection of claim 4 above, the spacings of the holes will be between 0.99 and 1.95 inches) . Regarding the limitation of wherein a spacing between adjacent pairs of cable holes of the plurality of cable holes is between 0.5 inches and 1.0 inches, see In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit 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. Additionally see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spacing between the holes of Mettler to be between 0.5 and 1.0 inches in order to advantageously provide more precise height adjustments. Regarding claim 6, Mettler as modified teaches wherein the plurality of holes 104 is positioned adjacent to the first lateral edge (Fig. 14). Regarding claim 7, Mettler as modified teaches the hook 150 provided on both lateral edges, past the first and second lateral edges of the base plate 102 (Fig. 14). Mettler as modified does not expressly teach the hook extending from one lateral edge to the other. However, Hutton teaches a bike carrier assembly mounted on a vehicle push bumper wherein a hook 38 extends from one lateral edge of the assembly to the other ([0019], Fig. 2 of Hutton). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hook of Mettler to extend from one lateral edge to the other in order to advantageously reduce strain on the hook by distributing the load from the bar across a larger contact surface area. While Hutton does not teach the hook extending past the first and second lateral edges of the base plate , the question is what would result from the combined teachings of the references. See in re Keller , 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Here, that result would be wherein the modified hook of Mettler in view of Hutton extends from the first lateral edge of the base plate to the second lateral edge of the base plate of Mettler, the hook further extending laterally past each of the first lateral edge and the second lateral edge. Regarding claim 8, Mettler as modified does not teach the hook having an L-shaped cross-section. However, Mettler teaches a lower hook member 150 wherein the hook has an L-shaped cross-section taken along a vertical plane extending through the hook 150 ([0057], Fig. 14; the hook 150 at the lower side of the plate 144 where inwardly-turned portion 148 is designated is the L-shaped hook). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the upper hook member of Mettler to have the shape and cross section of the lower hook of Mettler in order to advantageously provide a simple and consistent design. Regarding claim 9, Mettler as modified teaches wherein the receiver hitch tube 100 has a locking pin hole extending therethrough configured for receiving a locking pin to attach the hitch-mountable device to the receiver hitch tube 100 ( [0005], [0046], [0051], Figs. 11, 14, 16-17, 19) . Regarding claim 11, Mettler as modified teaches the apparatus further comprising a securement pin being couplable to the base plate 102 and the hook 150 ([0056], Fig. 14), wherein the base plate 102 and the hook 150 each have a pair of securement pin holes 104, 146 extending therethrough (Figs. 13-14), each securement pin hole of the pair of securement pin holes 104 of the base plate 102 aligning with an associated one of the pair of securement pin holes 146 of the hook 150 ([0056]), the securement pin being insertable into a selected one of the pair of securement pin holes 104 of the base plate 102 and the associated securement pin hole 146 of the hook 150 to form a closed loop with the base plate 102 and the hook 150 ([0056]) , the closed loop being positionable such that the closed loop is configured for receiving a crossbar 136 ([0056]-[0057], Fig. 14) of the vehicle grill guard. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 12 is allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the closest available prior art (e.g. Met t ler as modified by Hutton ) teaches a mount apparatus with a plurality of cable holes, but does not teach a cable lock being insertable through each one of a selected pair of cable holes of the plurality of cable holes, the cable lock being configured to secure the lower portion of the base plate against the vehicle grill guard . Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mettler to have the above limitation without resorting to impermissible hindsight. Claim 10 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. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : US 3510146 teaches a vehicle tow bar with a pin ning plate and a hooking portion that mount around the bars of a vehicle guard. US 20100096347 teaches a mounting plate for a hitch which uses vertically spaced holes for fasteners to be inserted. US 20050275194 teaches a hitch mount with lower and upper mounting portions which connects to a vehicle grill guard. US 20210101538 teaches a bike carrier for a vehicle with an upper hook portion and a lower latching portion with a plurality of fastening holes. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT NATHANIEL WILLIAM WATKINS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-4744 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Thursday, 8:30 am -6:00 pm EST; Friday 8:30 am - 2:00 pm EST . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Valentin Neacsu can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6265 . 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. /N.W.W./ Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611