Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 § 102
2. 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.
3. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
4. Claims 1, 4, 8, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heroy (US 3,669,278 A).
Regarding claim 1, Heroy discloses an accessory attachment system, comprising: a base plate (10) having a plurality of mounting apertures (11, see M below), a plurality of power connection apertures (11, see P below), and a plurality of lock apertures (11, see L below), wherein: each lock aperture is spaced from each mounting aperture (see below); each power connection aperture is spaced from each mounting aperture and each lock aperture (see below), and the plurality of mounting apertures, plurality of power connection apertures, and plurality of lock apertures form sets (see 3 outlined sets below) of apertures that are formed in a desired pattern (see pattern below) on the base plate, with the desired pattern being provided at multiple locations on the base plate (3 locations outlined below); and an accessory (13) having a primary surface (16) with an attachment interface (24) and a secondary surface (14) providing a support structure to hold one or more items, wherein the attachment interface comprises one or more tabs (24) that are bent outwardly of the primary surface (see Figures and also “bent downwardly” in col. 2 line 65) and received within selected mounting apertures of the plurality of mounting apertures (see Figures).
PNG
media_image1.png
551
776
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner notes that with respect to the apertures, the claim terms “mounting”, “power connection”, and “lock” are nominal and add no structure to the claimed apertures beyond them simply being apertures.
Regarding claim 4, Heroy discloses the accessory attachment system of claim 1, wherein the one or more tabs comprise a first set of tabs (24 of 13) for a first accessory or a second set of tabs (24 for 12) different than the first set of tabs for a second accessory.
Regarding claim 8, Heroy discloses the accessory attachment system of claim 1, including a lock insert (middle 16/24 of the three 16 shown on each 12) to secure the accessory to the base plate, wherein the lock insert is received within a lock aperture (one or more of apertures 11 not being considered a mounting aperture(s) of claim 1, i.e. the apertures for the outer 16’s to be mounted to) of the plurality of lock apertures, and wherein the lock insert (16/24) includes a portion (24) that is selectively moveable between an installed position and an uninstalled position (see Figure 3), wherein the portion extends outward of the lock aperture on the primary surface (see Figures 3 and 6).
Regarding claim 24, Heroy discloses the accessory attachment system of claim 1, wherein the desired pattern (which can also be viewed as a 3x3 array of the apertures 11) is formed with mounting apertures positioned at four corners (the four corners of the 3x3 array) in a four corner pattern with one power aperture centered (the center of the 3x3 array) between the four corners, and with locking apertures positioned between adjacent mounting apertures (at the top, bottom, left, and right of the 3x3 array).
5. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dube et al. (US 6,098,821 A).
PNG
media_image2.png
642
870
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Dube discloses an accessory attachment system, comprising: a base plate (2) having a plurality of mounting apertures (11, see M above), a plurality of power connection apertures (11, see P above), and a plurality of lock apertures (11, see L above), wherein: each lock aperture is spaced from each mounting aperture (see above); each power connection aperture is spaced from each mounting aperture and each lock aperture (see above), and the plurality of mounting apertures, plurality of power connection apertures, and plurality of lock apertures form sets (see 3 outlined sets above) of apertures that are formed in a desired pattern (see pattern above) on the base plate, with the desired pattern being provided at multiple locations on the base plate (3 locations outlined above); and an accessory (1) having a primary surface (13) with an attachment interface (4,5) and a secondary surface (11) providing a support structure to hold one or more items, wherein the attachment interface comprises one or more tabs (4,5) that are bent outwardly of the primary surface (see Figure 1) and received within selected mounting apertures of the plurality of mounting apertures (see Figures).
Examiner notes that with respect to the apertures, the claim terms “mounting”, “power connection”, and “lock” are nominal and add no structure to the claimed apertures beyond them simply being apertures.
Regarding claim 2, Dube discloses the accessory attachment system of claim 1, wherein the primary surface comprises a sheet metal plate (see “sheet of metal” in col. 4 line 5).
Regarding claim 3, Dube discloses the accessory attachment system of claim 2, wherein the one or more tabs are integrally formed with the sheet metal plate (see Figure 1 and “integral with the base” in col. 2 line 66), with each tab comprising a base formed with the sheet metal plate and extending to a distal end that is free from contact with the sheet metal plate (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 4, Dube discloses the accessory attachment system of claim 1, wherein the one or more tabs comprise a first set of tabs (4 and 5) for a first accessory or a second set of tabs different than the first set of tabs for a second accessory. Dube disclosing a single set of tabs is enough to satisfy the first half of this alternative “or” limitation.
6. Claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 17, 20, 21, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hurt (US 2008/0029471 A1). Examiner notes that this rejection heading has been changed to include claim 9 but claim 9 was in the body of the rejection in the Non-Final. This is not a new rejection.
PNG
media_image3.png
702
726
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Hurt discloses an accessory attachment system, comprising: a base plate (91) having a plurality of mounting apertures (92, see M above), a plurality of power connection apertures (92, see P above), and a plurality of lock apertures (93, see L above), wherein: each lock aperture is spaced from each mounting aperture (see above); each power connection aperture is spaced from each mounting aperture and each lock aperture (see above), and the plurality of mounting apertures, plurality of power connection apertures, and plurality of lock apertures form sets (see 3 outlined sets above) of apertures that are formed in a desired pattern (see pattern above) on the base plate, with the desired pattern being provided at multiple locations on the base plate (3 locations outlined above); and an accessory (20/41) having a primary surface (41) with an attachment interface (42) and a secondary surface (25) providing a support structure to hold one or more items, wherein the attachment interface comprises one or more tabs (42) that are bent outwardly of the primary surface (see Figure 23) and received within selected mounting apertures of the plurality of mounting apertures (see Figures).
Examiner notes that with respect to the apertures, the claim terms “mounting”, “power connection”, and “lock” are nominal and add no structure to the claimed apertures beyond them simply being apertures.
Regarding claim 4, Hurt discloses the accessory attachment system of claim 1, wherein the one or more tabs comprise a first set of tabs (42) for a first accessory or a second set of tabs different than the first set of tabs for a second accessory. Hurt disclosing a single set of tabs is enough to satisfy the first half of this alternative “or” limitation.
Regarding claim 8, Hurt discloses the accessory attachment system of claim 1, including a lock insert (24) to secure the accessory to the base plate, wherein the lock insert is received within a lock aperture (93) of the plurality of lock apertures (see Figure 23 where element 71 of 24 enters the lock aperture 93), and wherein the lock insert (24) includes a portion (71) that is selectively moveable between an installed position (see Figure 23) and an uninstalled position (see Figures 25), wherein the portion (71) extends outward of the lock aperture on the primary surface (see Figures 23-24).
Regarding claim 9, Hurt discloses the accessory attachment system of claim 8, wherein the plurality of lock apertures (93) and the plurality of power connection apertures have a different size and/or shape than the plurality of mounting apertures (92). Looking at Figures 2 and 9, the lock apertures (93) clearly have a different shape than the power connection and mounting apertures (92) and Examiner is of the position that as currently oriented, the left most apertures (92) have a different / inverted shape than the right most apertures (92). As such, they are “different shape” as currently broadly claimed. (Something to consider in a potential future amendment - Hurt discloses that the illustrated hole shapes are merely exemplary and that any shape may be used - see [0079]).
Regarding claim 17, Hurt discloses a method comprising: forming a base plate (91) having a plurality of mounting apertures (92, see M above), a plurality of power connection apertures (92, see P above), and a plurality of lock apertures (93, see L above), wherein: each lock aperture is spaced from each mounting aperture (see above); each power connection aperture is spaced from each mounting aperture and each lock aperture (see above), and the plurality of mounting apertures, plurality of power connection apertures, and plurality of lock apertures form sets (see 3 outlined sets above) of apertures that are formed in a desired pattern (see pattern above) on the base plate, with the desired pattern being provided at multiple locations on the base plate (3 locations outlined above); integrally forming a plurality of bent tabs (42) on a primary surface of an accessory; and inserting the plurality of bent tabs through selected mounting apertures formed within the base plate (see Figures 23-25). Examiner notes that with respect to the apertures, the claim terms “mounting”, “power connection”, and “lock” are nominal and add no structure to the claimed apertures beyond them simply being apertures.
Regarding claim 20, Hurt discloses the method of claim 17, where Hurt discloses inserting a lock insert (24) supported by the primary surface (41) into a lock aperture (93) that is spaced apart from the mounting apertures, and wherein the lock insert (24) includes a portion (71) that is selectively moveable between an installed position (see Figure 23) and an uninstalled position (see Figures 25), wherein the portion (71) extends outward of the lock aperture on the primary surface (see Figures 23-24).
Regarding claim 21, Hurt discloses the method of claim 20, wherein Hurt discloses the at least one lock insert comprises a center body (24), and wherein the portion comprises a pair of resilient arms (71) that are selectively movable between the installed position (see Figure 23) and the uninstalled position (see Figure25), and each arm has a base end formed with the center body and extends to a distal end that is spaced from the center body and extends back outward of the lock aperture on the primary surface (see Figures 23-24).
Regarding claim 25, Hurt discloses the accessory attachment system of claim 8, wherein Hurt discloses the lock insert comprises a center body (24), and wherein the portion comprises a pair of resilient arms (71) that are selectively movable between the installed position (see Figure 23) and the uninstalled position (see Figure25), and each arm has a base end formed with the center body and extends to a distal end that is spaced from the center body and extends back outward of the lock aperture on the primary surface (see Figures 23-24).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claims 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swayne et al. (US 7,854,101 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Swayne discloses an accessory attachment system, comprising: a base plate (32) having a plurality of mounting apertures (48, see “at least one” in col. 3 line 15); and an accessory (34) having a primary surface (see Figures) with an attachment interface (tabs shown in Figures) and a secondary surface (attachment head in Figures) providing a support structure to hold one or more items, wherein the attachment interface comprises one or more tabs (see Figures) that are bent outwardly of the primary surface (see Figure 5) and received within selected mounting apertures of the plurality of mounting apertures (see Figure 2).
Swayne fails to disclose just how many apertures there are and thus fails to disclose a plurality of mounting apertures, a plurality of power connection apertures, and a plurality of lock apertures, wherein: each lock aperture is spaced from each mounting aperture; each power connection aperture is spaced from each mounting aperture and each lock aperture, and the plurality of mounting apertures, plurality of power connection apertures, and plurality of lock apertures form sets of apertures that are formed in a desired pattern on the base plate, with the desired pattern being provided at multiple locations on the base plate.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have varied the length of the Swayne bracket (32) and its number of apertures (48), in this case to make it longer and to include at least twelve apertures, the motivation being to accommodate a longer component (30) and adequately secure the component in place. Furthermore, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component (the length) and duplication of parts (the number of apertures). A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). It has also been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Within this longer bracket (32) of Swayne now having twelve apertures, there would be sets of linear patterned apertures which can be viewed as a plurality of mounting apertures, a plurality of power connection apertures, and a plurality of lock apertures, wherein: each lock aperture is spaced from each mounting aperture; each power connection aperture is spaced from each mounting aperture and each lock aperture, and the plurality of mounting apertures, plurality of power connection apertures, and plurality of lock apertures form sets of apertures that are formed in a desired pattern on the base plate, with the desired pattern being provided at multiple locations on the base plate as claimed.
Regarding claim 4, Swayne as modified above would include the accessory attachment system of claim 1, wherein the one or more tabs comprise a first set of tabs (two tabs on each of 34) for a first accessory or a second set of tabs (two tabs on a different 34) different (separate physical element) than the first set of tabs for a second accessory.
Regarding claim 5, Swayne as modified above would include the accessory attachment system of claim 4, wherein the first set of tabs comprises two tabs (see Figures) that are received within a single aperture of the plurality of mounting apertures (see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 6, Swayne as modified above would include the accessory attachment system of claim 5, wherein the second set of tabs (tabs on another of 34) comprises a single tab (two tabs which includes two single tabs) that is received within a single aperture of the plurality of mounting apertures.
9. Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heroy (US 3,669,278 A) in view of Dube et al. (US 6,098,821 A).
Regarding claim 2, Heroy discloses the accessory attachment system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the primary surface comprises a sheet metal plate. Heroy does disclose the use of sheet material (see col. 2 lines 51-53) but is silent as to the sheet being metal. Dube teaches that sheet metal (see “sheet of metal” in col. 4 line 5) was already known to be suitable for making an attachment interface like that of Heroy. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have made the primary surface of Heroy from sheet metal, where sheet metal was already known to be suitable for such use, as shown by Dube. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 3, Heroy as modified above would include the accessory attachment system of claim 2, wherein Heroy discloses the one or more tabs are integrally formed with the sheet metal plate, with each tab comprising a base formed with the sheet metal plate and extending to a distal end that is free from contact with the sheet metal plate (see Figures).
10. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heroy (US 3,669,278 A) in view of Flament (US 4,941,784 A).
Regarding claim 10, Heroy discloses the accessory attachment system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the base plate is mounted within a cargo area of a vehicle. Heroy discloses the base plate being for a display shelf and never mention use in a vehicle. Flament teaches that it was already known to utilize a base plate and accessory like those of Heroy within the trunk of a vehicle for supporting cargo. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have utilized the base plate of Heroy with a vehicle trunk in order to support cargo, where such was already known in the art as shown by Flament.
11. Claims 10, 11, 15, 16, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurt (US 2008/0029471 A1) in view of Beenen (US 2021/0138954 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Hurt discloses the accessory attachment system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the base plate (91) is mounted within a cargo area of a vehicle. Hurt generally discloses use against a wall or other vertical surface (see [0006]). Beenen teaches that it was already known to utilize a base plate like that of Hurt against the vertical wall of a truck bed for securing equipment thereto. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have utilized the base plate of Hurt against the vertical wall of a truck bed in order to support equipment, where such was already known in the art as shown by Beenen.
Regarding claim 11, Hurt as modified above would include a vehicle, as taught by Beenen, comprising: a cargo area having a bottom wall and one or more side walls, as taught by Beenen; one or more base plates attached to the bottom wall and/or to one or more of the side walls, as taught by Beenen; each base plate having a plurality of mounting apertures and a plurality of lock apertures, as taught by Hurt, wherein each lock aperture is spaced from each mounting aperture, as taught by Hurt; at least one accessory having a primary surface with an attachment interface and a secondary surface providing a support structure to hold one or more items, as taught by Hurt, wherein the attachment interface comprises a plurality of tabs that are bent outwardly of the primary surface and are received within selected mounting apertures of the plurality of mounting apertures, as taught by Hurt; and at least one lock insert supported by the at least one accessory and selectively securable within one lock aperture of the plurality of lock apertures, as taught by Hurt, and wherein the lock insert (24) includes a portion (71) that is selectively moveable between an installed position (see Figure 23) and an uninstalled position (see Figures 25), wherein the portion (71) extends outward of the lock aperture on the primary surface (see Figures 23-24), as taught by Hurt.
Regarding claim 15, Hurt as modified above would include the vehicle of claim 11, wherein Hurt discloses the at least one lock insert comprises a center body (24), and wherein the portion comprises a pair of opposing arms (71) that are selectively movable between the installed position (see Figure 23) and the uninstalled position (see Figure25), and each arm has a base end formed with the center body and extends to a distal end that is spaced from the center body and extends back outward of the lock aperture on the primary surface (see Figures 23-24).
Regarding claim 16, Hurt as modified above would include the vehicle of claim 15, wherein Hurt discloses each arm of the pair of opposing arms includes a grip or tang (73).
Regarding claim 23, Hurt as modified above would include the vehicle of claim 11, wherein each base plate has a plurality of mounting apertures (92, see M above), a plurality of power connection apertures (92, see P above), and a plurality of lock apertures (93, see L above), wherein: each lock aperture is spaced from each mounting aperture (see above); each power connection aperture is spaced from each mounting aperture and each lock aperture (see above); wherein the plurality of lock apertures (93) and the plurality of power connection apertures have a different size and/or shape than the plurality of mounting apertures (92)(Looking at Figures 2 and 9, the lock apertures (93) clearly have a different shape than the power connection and mounting apertures (92) and Examiner is of the position that as currently oriented, the left most apertures (92) have a different / inverted shape than the right most apertures (92) - as such, they are “different shape” as currently broadly claimed); and the plurality of mounting apertures, plurality of power connection apertures, and plurality of lock apertures form sets (see 3 outlined sets above) of apertures that are formed in a desired pattern (see pattern above) on the base plate, with the desired pattern being provided at multiple locations on the base plate (3 locations outlined above)
12. Claims 12, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurt (US 2008/0029471 A1) in view of Beenen (US 2021/0138954 A1) as applied above, further in view of Dube et al. (US 6,098,821 A).
Regarding claim 12, Hurt as modified above would include the vehicle of claim 11, but so far fails to include wherein the primary surface (41) comprises a sheet metal plate. Hurt does disclose the primary surface (41) “may have any suitable structure” (see 0056]). Dube teaches that sheet metal (see “sheet of metal” in col. 4 line 5) was already known to be suitable for making an attachment interface like that of Hurt. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have made the primary surface of Hurt from sheet metal, where sheet metal was already known to be suitable for such use, as shown by Dube. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 13, Hurt as modified above would include the vehicle of claim 12, wherein the plurality of tabs are integrally formed with the sheet metal plate, as taught by Dube, with each tab comprising a base formed with the sheet metal plate and extending to a distal end that is free from contact with the sheet metal plate, as taught by Hurt.
Regarding claim 18, the normal construction and use of Hurt as modified above would result in the method of claim 17, wherein the primary surface comprises a sheet metal plate, as taught by Dube, and including separating portions of each tab from the sheet metal plate leaving only a base portion attached to the sheet metal plate, and bending each tab at the base portion such that a distal end of each tab is free from contact with the sheet metal plate, as taught by Hurt.
Allowable Subject Matter
13. Claims 14 and 22 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.
14. Claims 7 and 19 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
15. Applicant’s arguments filed 1/29/26 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant has argued that the applied references fail to disclose mounting apertures, power connection apertures, and lock apertures that comprise sets and patterns as now claimed. As set forth in each of the rejections above, Examiner notes that with respect to the apertures, the claim terms “mounting”, “power connection”, and “lock” are nominal and add no structure to the claimed apertures beyond them simply being apertures. The applied references each include a plurality of apertures that read on the presently claimed apertures, as clearly shown in the rejections above.
Conclusion
16. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN MATTHEW LARSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8649. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-3pm. 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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at (571)272-4544. 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.
/JUSTIN M LARSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734 2/17/26