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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign mentioned in the description: 62, block. 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. 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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: On Page 5, Line 1, in the phrase “the fourth slots 46 is positioned proximate the first end 22”, it appears that “the first end” should actually be “second end” since Fig. 4 shows a pair of slots 46 adjacent the second end.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 6, it appears that “brackets” should be “bracket”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claims 1 and 10, line 3 of each claim, the claims state “a rail having a pair of feet each being pivotally disposed on opposing ends…”, pivotally disposed is unclear because it appears from Fig. 2 of Applicant’s drawings that the foot 14 is abutted directly against the rail 12. It is not clear how the depicted structures could pivot relative to one another.
In claims 3 and 10, the term “proximate” in claims 3 and 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “proximate” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In claims 3 and 10, each of the claims state “each of said fourth slots being positioned proximate said first end”; however, this language appears to be inaccurate as Fig. 4 of the Applicant’s drawings show that the pair of fourth slots 46 is proximate the second end.
Claims 2, 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they inherit the 112(b) rejection problems form as the independent claims.
In claim 2, lines 7-8, the phrase “each of said pair of first slots” is vague and indefinite. There appears to be only one pair of first slots. Perhaps Applicant intended to recite “each one of said pair of first slots.” There is a similar problem regarding “each of said pair of second slots” in line 11 of the claim.
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, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cadman (U.S. Patent No. 1,411, 403), in view of Miller (U.S. Patent No. 5,611,472).
With respect to claim 1, Cadman teaches a cargo securing device for securing cylindrical cargo on a cargo trailer, said device comprising:
a rail 12 wherein said rail 12 is configured to be extended laterally across a cargo trailer 14 thereby facilitating cylindrical cargo to be placed upon said rail 12; and
a pair of clamps 19, each of said pair of clamps being slidably integrated into said rail 12, each of said pair of clamps 19 being actuatable in a first condition having each of said pair of clamps travelling toward said center of said rail (Cadman, pg. 1, lines 98-101; Fig. 1), each of said pair of clamps 19 being actuatable in a second condition having each of said pair of clamps travelling away from said center of said rail (Cadman, pg. 1, lines 98-101; Fig. 1), each of said pair of clamps 19 having a slanted gripping element (26; Fig. 1) wherein said slanted gripping element 26 associated with each of said clamps is configured to abut the cylindrical cargo thereby restraining lateral motion of the cylindrical cargo on said rail 12 (as shown in Fig. 4 of Cadman).
PNG
media_image1.png
443
883
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
538
828
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Cadman does not teach a pair of feet being pivotally disposed on opposing ends of the rail with respect to each other.
Miller teaches a similar cargo securing device including a pair of feet (28; Fig. 1) each being pivotally disposed on opposing ends of a rail 12 with respect to each other. The 28 feet are pivotally connected to the rail 12 by a threaded member (34; Fig. 1) inserted through a slot (36; Fig. 1), allowing for movement towards and away from the center of the rail.
Cadman and Miller are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of securing cargo to vehicles. Therefore, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cadman to incorporate the slidable feet of Miller with a reasonable expectation of for the advantage of the width adjustability afforded by the slot 36 taught by Miller.
With respect to claim 2, Cadman teaches the rail having a first end (Fig. 1) and second end (Fig. 1), with an outer wall extending between the first end and second end (Fig. 1). The outer wall has a top side (Fig. 1), a first lateral side (Fig. 1), and a second lateral side, the rail having a rectangular shape while being substantially hollow and each of the first and second end being open. The cargo securing unit has a pair of first slots (Fig. 1) and second slots (Fig. 1), each one of the first and second pair of slots protruding through the top side, separated by a chain running longitudinally across the rail 12. Both pairs of slots have a terminal end at the central block (12; Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 3, Cadman’s cargo securing unit comprises a pair of third slots, extending through the first and second lateral sides of the rail, each of the third slots (Fig. 1) being positioned closest to the first end. Cadman’s cargo securing unit also teaches a pair of fourth slots (not illustrated; Page 3, Column 2, Lines 80-82) extending through the first and second lateral side of the rail, each of the fourth slots being positioned closest to the second end. The outer wall also has a pair of holes, at each respective end, extending through the bottom side of the outer wall (Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 5, Cadman fails to teach a cushion.
Miller teaches a cushion (padding 22, Col. 3, Line 31) having a bottom surface being attached to said top side of said outer wall of said rail 12 (Fig. 1 of Miller) wherein said cushion is capable of having the cylindrical cargo being positioned on top of said cushion 22, said cushion extending the first end to the second end. In the combination of Cadman and Miller the cushion 22 would be offset from each of said pair of first slots and each of said pair of second slots.
Cadman and Miller are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of securing cargo to vehicles. Therefore, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cadman to incorporate the cushion of Miller to hold the cargo.
PNG
media_image3.png
672
942
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 6-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 4 has been indicated as containing allowable subject matter because there is no prior art of record that teaches the feet extending through a hole in the bottom of the rail, where the feet include a pin extending through a respective one of the pair of third and fourth slots. Miller teaches feet that are slidably adjusted, configured to accommodate varying widths of cargo trailers, but does not teach the feet extending through one of the bottom holes of the rail.
Claims 6-9 have been indicated as containing allowable subject matter because there is no prior art of record that describes the clamps comprising a block being slidably positioned within the rail, inhibiting the block from rotating, with a pair of tabs extending from the top wall of the block through a pair of first or second slots and a first and second aperture within the block.
Claim 10 contains limitations from previous claims indicated as allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Xiao et al. (Chinese Patent Application No. 202110686334) teaches a flat transport vehicle with adjustable clamps.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONOR WILLIAM GROSS whose telephone number is (571)272-2925. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30-17:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amy Weisberg can be reached at (571) 270-5500. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.W.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612