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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9, 12-14, 16, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher (Patent No. 10,780,836) in view of Gardner et al. (Patent No. 11,560,909).
Re: claim 1, Fisher teaches an accessory attachment system (Fig. 1), comprising: a base plate (2) configured to be positioned within a vehicle cargo area that has a floor surface (Seen in Fig. 2B – a portion of the floor surface is shown along with the wheel well hump (268)) and at least one side wall (4) extending upwardly relative to the floor surface (See Fig. 2B), and wherein the base plate includes at least a first plate portion (20) that is associated with the at least one side wall (4). Fisher fails to teach a second plate portion that extends above the floor surface; an accessory comprising at least one accessory side wall including at least one first lock feature associated with the first plate portion, and a bottom wall including at least one second lock feature associated with the second plate portion; and wherein the accessory includes at least one handle that is movable between a locked position and an unlocked position, and wherein the at least one handle simultaneously unlocks the at least one first lock feature and the at least one second lock feature when moved to the unlocked position.
With respect to a second plate portion that extends above the floor surface, the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
However, Gardner et al. teaches an accessory (Fig. 9 – 300) comprising at least one accessory side wall (303) including at least one first lock feature (304) associated with the first plate portion (Fig. 12 - 30), and a bottom wall (Annotated Fig. 9 – 301b); and wherein the accessory includes at least one handle (307) that is movable between a locked position (Fig. 12) and an unlocked position (Fig. 11), and wherein the at least one handle simultaneously unlocks the at least one first lock feature (See Figs. 11 and 12) when moved to the unlocked position. Gardner et al. fails to teach at least one second lock feature associated with the second plate portion and wherein the at least one handle simultaneously unlocks the at least one first lock feature and the at least one second lock feature when moved to the unlocked position the at least one second lock feature.
PNG
media_image1.png
296
458
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fisher and Gardner et al. are considered to be analogous as both are in the same field of securing objects in a vehicle cargo area. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Fisher’s apparatus with Gardner et al’s. accessory for the advantage of being able to securely attach an accessory to the plate portion such that equipment and tools do not shift around in the cargo area.
The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04). In view of Gardner et al., the duplication of the locking mechanism to be present on the bottom wall of the apparatus and having the handle operate such that locking and unlocking is simultaneous with the first and second locking mechanism would not produce new or unexpected results.
Re: claim 2, Fisher teaches including at least one first aperture (38) provided in the first plate portion (20). Fisher fails to teach at least one second aperture provided in the second plate portion, and wherein the at least one first lock feature is received within the at least one first aperture when in the locked position and wherein the at least one second lock feature is received within the at least one second aperture when in the locked position.
With respect to at least one second aperture provided in the second plate portion, the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
However, Gardner et al. teaches wherein the at least one first lock feature (Fig. 9 - 304) is received within the at least one first aperture (315) when in the locked position (Fig. 12). Gardner et al. fails to teach wherein the at least one second lock feature is received within the at least one second aperture when in the locked position.
With respect to the at least one second lock feature is received within the at least one second aperture when in the locked position, the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Re: claim 3, Gardner et al. further teaches wherein the at least one first lock feature (Fig. 10 - 304) comprises a first latch pin (312) that is coupled to the at least one handle (307) via an actuating mechanism (341). Gardner et al. fails to teach the at least one second lock feature comprises a second latch pin that is fixed to the at least one handle.
The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Re: claim 4, Gardner et al. further teaches wherein the actuating mechanism (341) comprises a strap (340) that is slidable (See Figs. 11 and 12) along a track (352 & 354) to retract the first latch pin (312) from the at least one first aperture (315) when the at least one handle (307) is moved to the unlocked position (Fig. 11).
Re: claim 5, Gardner et al. teaches wherein the at least one handle (307) extends from a grip portion (Annotated Fig. 10-2 – grip portion) to a distal end (Annotated Fig. 10-2 – distal end), and wherein the second latch pin (314) is attached to the distal end of the at least one handle (314 is attached to 301 which is attached to the distal end of 307), and wherein the second latch pin is moved upwardly (See Fig. 11 &12 and the note below) and out of the second aperture (315) when the at least one handle (307) is moved to the unlocked position (See Fig. 11).
It is noted by the examiner that upwardly is not a defined direction and can be interpreted as any direction. The examiner has noted this direction in the annotated figure to add clarification to the examiner’s position. The examiner also notes that while Gardner et al. does not teach a second latching mechanism/aperture/pin, Fig. 10 is being utilized to clarify the position on the claim. It is also noted that ‘out’ is being interpreted as ‘disengaged’ from the aperture, of which Fig. 11 shows this configuration.
The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
PNG
media_image2.png
368
418
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re: claim 6, Gardner et al. further teaches wherein the at least one accessory side wall (Annotated Fig. 9 – 303) comprises a rear wall (Annotated Fig. 9 – 301r) and wherein the accessory further includes a pair of side walls (Annotated Fig. 9 – 303 & 301s) that extend upwardly from the bottom wall (Annotated Fig. 9 – 301b) and which connect the rear wall (Annotated Fig. 9 – 301r) to a front wall (Annotated Fig. 9 -301f), and wherein the at least one handle (307) is supported by one side wall of the pair of side walls (Annotated Fig. 9 - 301s) for sliding movement between the locked position (Fig. 12) and the unlocked position (Fig. 11).
Re: claim 9, Gardner et al. further teaches wherein the at least one first lock feature (304) comprises a latch pin (312) and a strap assembly (340), wherein the latch pin is insertable into a latching aperture (315) in the first plate portion (30), and wherein the strap assembly (340) couples the latch pin (312) to the at least one handle (307) such that movement of the at least one handle is translated into movement of the latch pin (See Figs. 11 and 12).
Re: claim 12, Fisher teaches an accessory attachment system (Fig. 1), comprising: a base plate (2) configured to be positioned within a vehicle cargo area that has a floor surface (Seen in Fig. 2B – a portion of the floor surface is shown along with the wheel well hump (268)) and at least one side wall (4) extending upwardly relative to the floor surface (See Fig. 2B), and wherein the base plate includes at least a first plate portion (20) that is associated with the at least one side wall (4); wherein the first plate portion (20) includes a plurality of apertures (38), wherein at least one of the plurality of apertures comprises a first latching aperture (any of the mounting array (38)) located in the first plate portion (20). Fisher fails to teach a second plate portion that extends above the floor surface; wherein the second plate portion include a plurality of apertures, wherein at least another of the plurality of apertures comprises a second latching aperture located in the second plate portion; an accessory comprising at least one accessory side wall including at least one first lock feature associated with the first latching aperture and a bottom wall including at least one second lock feature associated with the second latching aperture; and wherein the accessory includes at least one handle that is movable between a locked position and an unlocked position, and wherein the at least one handle simultaneously unlocks the at least one first lock feature and the at least one second lock feature when moved to the unlocked position.
With respect to a second plate portion that extends above the floor surface; wherein the second plate portion include a plurality of apertures, wherein at least another of the plurality of apertures comprises a second latching aperture located in the second plate portion, the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
However, Garner et al. teaches an accessory (Fig. 9 – 300) comprising at least one accessory side wall (303) including at least one first lock feature (304) associated with the first latching aperture (Fig. 12 - 30), and a bottom wall (Annotated Fig. 9 – 301b); and wherein the accessory includes at least one handle (307) that is movable between a locked position (Fig. 12) and an unlocked position (Fig. 11), and wherein the at least one handle simultaneously unlocks the at least one first lock feature (See Figs. 11 and 12) when moved to the unlocked position. Gardner et al. fails to teach at least one second lock feature associated with the second latching aperture and wherein the at least one handle simultaneously unlocks the at least one first lock feature and the at least one second lock feature when moved to the unlocked position the at least one second lock feature.
Fisher and Gardner et al. are considered to be analogous as both are in the same field of securing objects in a vehicle cargo area. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Fisher’s apparatus with Gardner et al’s. accessory for the advantage of being able to securely attach an accessory to the plate portion such that equipment and tools do not shift around in the cargo area.
The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04). In view of Gardner et al., the duplication of the locking mechanism to be present on the bottom wall of the apparatus and having the handle operate such that locking and unlocking is simultaneous with the first and second locking mechanism would not produce new or unexpected results.
Re: claim 13, Fisher teaches wherein the plurality of apertures includes at least one cleat aperture (any of the mount array (38)) that receives the at least one cleat to attach the accessory (Col. 5 – Lines 42-54) to the first plate portion (20), and wherein the at least one cleat aperture is distanced from the first latching aperture (See Fig. 4C – all apertures are spaced from one another). Fisher fails to teach the at least one accessory side wall includes at least one cleat.
However, Gardner et al. teaches the at least one accessory side wall (Annotated Fig. 9 – 303) includes at least one cleat (Annotated Fig. 9 - cleat).
Fisher and Gardner et al. are considered to be analogous as both are in the same field of securing objects in a vehicle cargo area. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Fisher’s apparatus with Gardner et al’s. cleat for the advantage of being able to more securely attach an accessory to the plate portion such that equipment and tools do not shift around in the cargo area.
Re: claim 14, Gardner et al. teaches wherein the at least one first lock feature (304) comprises a first latch pin (312) that is coupled to the at least one handle (307) via an actuating mechanism (341). Gardner et al. fails to teach the at least one second lock feature comprises a second latch pin that is attached to the at least one handle.
The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Re: claim 16, Gardner et al. teaches wherein the at least one handle (307) extends from a grip portion (Annotated Fig. 10-2 – grip portion) to a distal end (Annotated Fig. 10-2 – distal end), and wherein the second latch pin (314) is attached to the distal end of the at least one handle (314 is attached to 301 which is attached to the distal end of 307), and wherein the second latch pin is moved upwardly (See Fig. 11 &12 and the note below) and out of the second latching aperture (315) when the at least one handle (307) is moved to the unlocked position (See Fig. 11).
It is noted by the examiner that upwardly is not a defined direction and can be interpreted as any direction. The examiner has noted this direction in the annotated figure to add clarification to the examiner’s position. The examiner also notes that while Gardner et al. does not teach a second latching mechanism/aperture/pin, Fig. 10 is being utilized to clarify the position on the claim.
The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Re: claim 18, Fisher teaches a method of attaching an accessory (Col. 5 – Lines 42-54) to a base plate (2) configured to be positioned within a vehicle cargo area that has a floor surface (Seen in Fig. 2B – a portion of the floor surface is shown along with the wheel well hump (268)) and at least one side wall (4) extending upwardly relative to the floor surface (See Fig. 2B), and wherein the base plate includes at least a first plate portion (20) that is associated with the at least one side wall (4). Fisher fails to teach a second plate portion that extends above the floor surface, and wherein the accessory includes at least a first lock feature and a second lock feature, the method including: simultaneously unlocking the first lock feature from the first plate portion and the second lock feature from the second plate portion when at least one handle associated with the accessory is moved to an unlocked position.
With respect to a second plate portion that extends above the floor surface, the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
However, Gardner et al. teaches wherein the accessory (Fig. 9 - 300) includes at least a first lock feature (304), the method including: simultaneously unlocking (See Fig. 11) the first lock feature (304) from the first plate portion (30) when at least one handle (307) associated with the accessory (300) is moved to an unlocked position (See Fig. 11). Gardner et al. fails to teach simultaneously unlocking the first lock feature from the first plate portion and the second lock feature from the second plate portion when at least one handle associated with the accessory is moved to an unlocked position.
Fisher and Gardner et al. are considered to be analogous as both are in the same field of securing objects in a vehicle cargo area. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Fisher’s apparatus with Gardner et al’s. accessory for the advantage of being able to securely attach an accessory to the plate portion such that equipment and tools do not shift around in the cargo area.
The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04). In view of Gardner et al., the duplication of the locking mechanism to be present on the bottom wall of the apparatus and having the handle operate such that locking and unlocking is simultaneous with the first and second locking mechanism would not produce new or unexpected results.
Re: claim 19, Gardner et al. teaches wherein the first lock feature (Fig. 9 - 304) comprises a first latch pin (312) and the second lock feature (Annotated Fig. 10-2) comprises a second latch pin (Annotated Fig. 10-2 – 314), the method including providing at least one first latching aperture (315) in the first plate portion (30) to receive the first latch pin (312) and at least one second latching aperture (Annotated Fig. 10-2 – 315-2) in the second plate portion (Annotated Fig. 10-2 – 30-2) to receive the second latch pin (Annotated Fig. 10-2 - 314), coupling the first latch pin (Fig. 9 – 312) to the at least one handle (307) via a strap assembly (341), fixing the second latch pin (Annotated Fig. 10-2 – 314) to a bottom end (Annotated Fig. 10 – Distal End) of the at least one handle (307), and simultaneously pulling the first latch pin out of the at least one first latching aperture via the strap assembly and pulling the second latch pin out of the at least one second latching aperture via the at least one handle (See Figs. 11 & 12 and note below).
It is noted by the examiner that while Gardner et al. does not teach a second latching mechanism/aperture/pin, Fig. 10 is being utilized to clarify the position on the claim. It is also noted that ‘out’ is being interpreted as ‘disengaged’ from the aperture, of which Fig. 11 shows this configuration.
Claim(s) 7 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher in view of Gardner et al. further in view of Lincoln (NPL - youtube.com/watch?v=Cby4GoihGwE).
Re: claim 7, Fisher and Gardner et al. fail to teach including at least one light feature associated with one of the front wall, rear wall, and pair of side walls to indicate an accessory characteristic.
However, Lincoln teaches at least one light feature (Light feature) associated with the apparatus (apparatus) to indicate an accessory characteristic (Used to indicate a locked/unlocked state).
Fisher, Gardner et al., and Lincoln are considered to be analogous as all are in the same field of securing objects. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Fisher’s apparatus and Gardner et al’s. accessory with Lincoln’s light feature for the advantage of giving an indication to a user on whether the accessory is secure to the cargo area, which would prevent cargo from being shifted around or user injury.
Re: claim 20, Fisher and Gardner et al. fail to teach including using a light feature associated with the accessory to indicate a change in locking status of the accessory.
However, Lincoln teaches including using a light feature (Light feature) associated with the apparatus (apparatus) to indicate a change in locking status of the apparatus (Used to indicate a locked/unlocked state – as stated in the video).
Fisher, Gardner et al., and Lincoln are considered to be analogous as all are in the same field of securing objects. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Fisher’s apparatus and Gardner et al’s. accessory with Lincoln’s light feature for the advantage of giving an indication to a user on whether the accessory is secure to the cargo area, which would prevent cargo from being shifted around or user injury.
Claim(s) 21-22 and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher (Patent No. 10,780,836) in view of Gardner et al. (Patent No. 11,560,909) in further view of Squiers et al. (Patent No. 11,426,859).
Re: claim 21, Fischer teaches forming a plurality of mounting apertures (38) in the first plate portion (20). Gardner et al. teaches providing one or more cleats (Annotated Fig. 9 – Cleat) or mounting feet on the accessory that are receivable within the plurality of mounting apertures (See Fig. 10); and a first lock feature (Fig. 9 - 304). Fischer and Gardner et al. fail to teach forming the first lock feature and the second lock feature to be independent of the one or more cleats or mounting feet and a second plate portion.
With respect to a second plate portion, the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
However, Squiers et al. teaches forming the first lock feature (Fig. 3 - 82) to be independent of the one or more cleats or mounting feet (70). Squiers et al. fails to teach a second lock feature.
With respect to a second lock feature, the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Fisher, Gardner et al., and Squiers et al. are considered to be analogous as all are in the same field of securing objects. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Fisher’s apparatus and Gardner et al.’s accessory with Squiers et al.’s accessory for the advantage of being able to securely attach an accessory to the plate portion such that equipment and tools do not shift around in the attachment area and also having multiple points of contact in the attachment area.
Re: claim 22, Fischer teaches forming a plurality of latching apertures (Annotated Fig. 1 – smaller apertures) that are different from the plurality of mounting apertures (38) in the first plate portion (20); and associating a feature with the plurality of latching apertures (Col. 5 – lines 42-54). Gardner et al. teaches a first lock feature (Fig. 9 - 304). Gardner et al. fails to teach a second lock feature. Fischer and Gardner et al. fail to teach a second plate portion.
With respect to a second plate portion, the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
With respect to a second lock feature, the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
PNG
media_image3.png
558
776
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re: claim 24, Fischer teaches wherein: the first plate portion (20) includes a plurality of mounting apertures (38). Gardner et al. teaches the accessory includes one or more cleats (Annotated Fig. 9 – Cleat) or mounting feet that are receivable within the plurality of mounting apertures (See Fig. 10); and a first lock feature (Fig. 9 - 304). Fischer and Gardner et al. fail to teach the first lock feature and the second lock feature are independent of the one or more cleats or mounting feet.
With respect to a second plate portion, the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
However, Squiers et al. teaches the first lock feature (Fig. 3 – 82) to be independent of the one or more cleats or mounting feet (70). Squiers et al. fails to teach a second lock feature.
With respect to a second lock feature, the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Fisher, Gardner et al., and Squiers et al. are considered to be analogous as all are in the same field of securing objects. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Fisher’s apparatus and Gardner et al.’s accessory with Squiers et al.’s accessory for the advantage of being able to securely attach an accessory to the plate portion such that equipment and tools do not shift around in the attachment area and also having multiple points of contact in the attachment area.
Re: claim 25, Fischer teaches the first plate portion (20) including a plurality of latching apertures (Annotated Fig. 1 – smaller apertures) that are different from the plurality of mounting apertures (38); and associating a feature with the plurality of latching apertures (Col. 5 – lines 42-54). Gardner et al. teaches a first lock feature (Fig. 9 - 304). Gardner et al. fails to teach a second lock feature. Fischer and Gardner et al. fail to teach a second plate portion.
With respect to a second plate portion, the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
With respect to a second lock feature, the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claim(s) 23 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher (Patent No. 10,780,836) in view of Gardner et al. (Patent No. 11,560,909) in further view of Squiers et al. (Patent No. 11,426,859) in even further view of Furuya (US 2019375352 A1).
Re: claim 23, Fischer teaches a first plate portion (20), mounting apertures (38), and latching apertures (Annotated Fig. 1 – smaller apertures). Fischer, Gardner et al., and Squiers et al. fail to teach forming a plurality of plate power interfaces that are different from the plurality of mounting apertures and the plurality of latching apertures in each of the first plate portion and the second plate portion; and powering the accessory via at least one of the plurality of plate power interfaces.
With respect to a second plate portion, the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
However, Furuya teaches forming a plurality of plate power interfaces (Fig. 5 – 67) in the first plate portion (6) and a second panel (29 – power interface) (20 – panel); and powering the accessory via at least one of the plurality of plate power interfaces (67 and 29 are outlets that supply AC power).
Fisher, Gardner et al., Squiers et al., and Furuya are considered to be analogous as all are in the same field of object attachment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Fisher’s apparatus, Gardner et al.’s accessory, and Squiers et al.’s accessory with Furuya’s power interfaces for the advantage of being able supply power to any accessory that is being attached that might require it.
Re: claim 26, Fischer teaches a first plate portion (20), mounting apertures (38), and latching apertures (Annotated Fig. 1 – smaller apertures). Fischer, Gardner et al., and Squiers et al. fail to teach a plurality of plate power interfaces that are different from the plurality of mounting apertures and the plurality of latching apertures in each of the first plate portion and the second plate portion; and each plate power interface is configured to provide power to the accessory.
With respect to a second plate portion, the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
However, Furuya teaches a plurality of plate power interfaces (Fig. 5 – 67) in the first plate portion (6) and a second panel (29 – power interface) (20 – panel); and each plate power interface is configured to provide power to the accessory (67 and 29 are outlets that supply AC power).
Fisher, Gardner et al., Squiers et al., and Furuya are considered to be analogous as all are in the same field of object attachment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Fisher’s apparatus, Gardner et al.’s accessory, and Squiers et al.’s accessory with Furuya’s power interfaces for the advantage of being able supply power to any accessory that is being attached that might require it.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher (Patent No. 10,780,836) in view of Gardner et al. (Patent No. 11,560,909) in further view of Furuya (US 2019375352 A1).
Re: claim 27, Fischer teaches wherein the at least one cleat aperture (38) comprises a plurality of cleat apertures (38) that are different than the first latching aperture (Annotated Fig. 1 – smaller aperture) and the second latching aperture (Annotated Fig. 1 – smaller aperture). Fischer and Gardner et al. fail to teach wherein the plurality of apertures further comprise a plurality of plate power interfaces that are different from the plurality of cleat apertures and the first and the second latching apertures.
However, Furuya teaches a plurality of plate power interfaces (Fig. 5 - 67 and 29).
Fisher, Gardner et al., and Furuya are considered to be analogous as all are in the same field of object attachment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Fisher’s apparatus and Gardner et al.’s accessory with Furuya’s power interfaces for the advantage of being able supply power to any accessory that is being attached that might require it.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Re: claim 1, 12, and 18 for the second plate portion, the Applicant argues that Fischer teaches away from a second plate portion through citing Col. 5 – lines 1-8 and lines 38-41, Col. 6 – lines 37-55, and claim 1 of Fischer. The examiner notes that Col. 5 – lines 1-8 merely states that it is configured to be installed on the sidewall of the truck bed, which does not teach away from being installed on the floor of the vehicle; lines 38-41 recite that the bottom portion of the installed portion on the sidewall does not extend out beyond the middle portion 34, which does not teach away from a second plate being installed on the floor of the vehicle. For Col. 6 – lines 37-55 and claim 1, the examiner notes the same as stated above in that there is no teaching away from a second plate.
Re: claim 1, 12, and 18 for simultaneous actuation, the Applicant argues that Gardner et al. does not teach or suggest that a single handle can be used to actuate a first and second lock feature and that duplication of parts is not rational reasoning. The examiner further cited that in figure 9 of Gardner et al. that the actuation of a handle moves both elements 312 and 314, which shows simultaneous actuation of multiple locking features. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have a first lock portion on a first plate and a second lock portion on a second plate and have the handle actuate both lock features.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 10-11, 15, and 17 are 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.
Conclusion
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 C ADAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights