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 § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 12, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mantovani (11,590,896).
Regarding claims 1, 4, and 15-17, Mantovani discloses a step board assembly adapted for a vehicle/truck, comprising:
a first piece (20) of a step board;
a second piece (10) of a step board;
a plurality of apertures (13/16; see Fig. 4) provided in the first and/or second piece (10) at predetermined locations adapted for selectively connecting at least one predetermined component (attachment bracket 50) to said step board; and
at least two attachment features (14/15 and 221) connecting the first and second pieces together in two locations, wherein one of the at least two attachment features includes a first hook feature (221) defined along a first longitudinal edge (see e.g., Fig. 6B) of the first piece (20) and a second hook feature (141) define along a first longitudinal edge of the second piece (10), the first hook feature is overlapped with and has a shape that is complementary to a shape of the second hook feature (as shown in Fig. 6B, the two edges of the top and bottom pieces overlap each other and have intermeshing shapes that read upon being complementary when applying a reasonably broad interpretation of the term), and wherein the second piece (10) includes an interior wall (see Fig. 6B where and un-numbered vertical wall generally located at the end of reference character 14’s leader line that cooperates with outer wall/hook feature 141 to define a gap 14) spaced from the second hook feature (141) by a gap (14) and the first hook feature (221) is received through the gap.
Regarding claim 7, Mantovani further discloses that the at least two attachment features include at least one pair of mechanical attachments (e.g., the interlocking ends 14/221 and 15/221 read upon mechanical attachments) to mechanically secure the first and second pieces together in the two locations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 2, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mantovani in view of Coomber et al. (US 2003/0011163).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Mantovani does not explicitly provide for the board pieces being made from an extruded aluminum material.
Coomber teaches another step board assembly that is formed from an aluminum extrusion (see ¶0032 and ¶0071).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the step assembly of Mantovani to make the step pieces from an extruded aluminum as taught by Coomber to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., using a lightweight metal to form vehicle steps and making elongated components via extrusion) to known devices (e.g., elongated 2-piece vehicle running boards) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., -------a running board made with well-known materials using a well-known manufacturing process).
Regarding claim 9, while Mantovani discloses the ends (14/221 and 15/221) of the two mated pieces (10/20) are coupled together, it does not specifically disclose that one of the hook features is arcuate to allow the pieces to swing together.
Coomber teaches another multi-piece running board that uses pairs of arcuate locking protrusions (146/218, see e.g., ¶s 0051-0052) where this arcuate mating shape of the connection at one edge allows for the opposing edge with rotate about the mated edge to couple the second edge together.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the step assembly of Mantovani to make use of arch-shaped interlocking connections as taught by Coomber allowing for an insert-then-rotate snapping motion to assemble the running board and arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes a simple substitution of one known element (arch-shaped locking/hooking complementary connectors) for another (non-specific mating connectors) to obtain predictable results.
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mantovani in view of Schoonover (11,541,815).
Regarding claims 3 and 8, as discussed above with respect to claim 9, Mantovani discloses the ends (14/221 and 15/221) of the two mated pieces (10, 20) are coupled together, but it does not specifically disclose that that an adhesive or mechanical fasteners are used.
Schoonover teaches another multi-piece running board that uses pairs of interlocking ends (18/20 and 22/24; see Figs. 2-3). The edges can be coupled via mechanical fasteners or adhesive (see Col. 2, lines 34-37).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the step assembly of Mantovani to make use of fasteners or adhesives as taught by Schoonover to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes a simple substitution of one known element (screws or adhesive locking of a connection) for another (non-specific connectors) to obtain predictable results.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mantovani in view of Coomber as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Schoonover.
Regarding claim 10, the Mantovani/Coomber combination provides for a mating edge having arcuate-shaped mating ends, but it does not specifically disclose that that an adhesive or mechanical fasteners are used along the opposite edge.
Schoonover teaches another multi-piece running board that uses pairs of interlocking ends (18/20 and 22/24; see Figs. 2-3). The edges can be coupled via mechanical fasteners (see Col. 2, lines 34-37).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the step assembly of the Mantovani combination to make use of fasteners along at least one connected edge as taught by Schoonover to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes a simple substitution of one known element (screws to mechanically lock an edge together) for another (non-specific connectors) to obtain predictable results.
Claims 12 and 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mantovani.
Regarding claims 12 and 21, Mantovani discloses that the “female” portions (14/15) of the intermeshing connections (14/221, 15/221) are found along the edges of the lower piece (10), while the upper piece (20) has the male portions (221) and therefore does not disclose that the connections have the gap in the upper portion.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the step assembly of Mantovani to reverse which mating edge includes the male and female elements to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. One skilled in the relevant art could modify Mantovani by swapping these two connection elements onto the opposite step board pieces as such a modification would be merely a rearrangement of parts as a matter of design choice. 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).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mantovani in view of Oakey (9,937,865).
Regarding claim 18, Mantovani discloses that the lower piece is bolted down to the support bracket, but does not disclose that the bolt aperture is not enclosed.
Oakey teaches another vehicle running board assembly having a two-piece configuration with a top portion (14A) coupled along its opposing edges to complementarily-shaped edges of a lower portion (16A, see Fig. 6). The lower piece (16A) is bolted down to a support bracket via an aperture (46). The aperture is not pierced on a closed one piece section (as shown in Fig. 6, the aperture 46 pierces the bottom 28A and is not enclosed along its top).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the step assembly of Mantovani to have a top-accessible bracket bolt as taught by Oakey to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes a simple substitution of one known element (a conventional through hole bolt hole arrangement) for another (a slotted/hidden bolt hole arrangement) to obtain predictable results (e.g., a less expensive mounting arrangement).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mantovani in view of Schoonover and Flavjnik et al. (8,016,309).
Regarding claim 19, Mantovani discloses a step board assembly, comprising:
a split 2-piece board (10, 20) comprising an upper first piece (20) and a lower second piece (10);
a plurality of apertures (13/16) provided in the second piece (20) at predetermined locations adapted for selectively connecting at least one predetermined component (e.g., the mounting brackets 50, see e.g., Fig. 4); and
a plurality of attachment features (14/15 and 221) features connecting the first and second pieces together along both longitudinal sides of the upper and lower sections wherein the attachment features includes a first hook feature (221) defined along a first longitudinal edge (see e.g., Fig. 6B) of the first piece (20) and a second hook feature (141) define along a first longitudinal edge of the second piece (10), the first hook feature is overlapped with and has a shape that is complementary to a shape of the second hook feature (as shown in Fig. 6B, the two edges of the top and bottom pieces overlap each other and have intermeshing shapes that read upon being complementary when applying a reasonably broad interpretation of the term), and wherein the second piece (10) includes an a longitudinal gap (14) adjacent to the second hook feature (141) and the first hook feature (221) is received through the gap.
While Mantovani discloses that another predetermined component (e.g., tread 30) is mounted to the upper section (20), it does not disclose specifically disclose that the two-pieces are extruded; that apertures in the top piece are used in its connection; or that attachment features include multiple fasteners along the edge.
Schoonover teaches another multi-piece running board that uses pairs of interlocking ends (18/20 and 22/24; see Figs. 2-3). The edges can be coupled via mechanical fasteners (see Col. 2, lines 34-37).
Flajnik teaches another vehicle running board assembly having its running board (12) formed via extrusion (see Col. 2, lines 53-55). Both the top section and the bottom section of the running board having a plurality of apertures (21/16; see e.g., Figs. 2 and 2A), wherein a tread component (60) is affixed to the top portion via an aperture (see e.g., Fig. 6A).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the step assembly of Mantovani to form the elongated board pieces via extrusion and to include mounting holes on the top portion of the running board as taught by Flajnik and to use fasteners along a longitudinal mating edge as taught by Schoonover to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., making elongated components via extrusion; using holes/fasteners to secure sub-components together; and using mechanical fasteners to secure components together) to known devices (e.g., multi-piece rigid vehicle running boards that are coupled to additional components) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mantovani in view of Flavjnik et al. (8,016,309).
Regarding claim 20, Mantovani discloses a step board assembly adapted for a vehicle, comprising:
an upper section (20) of a board;
a lower section (10) of the board with a plurality of apertures (13/16) formed through the lower section (10), said plurality of apertures for selectively connecting at least one predetermined component (50); and
a plurality of attachment features (14/15 and 221) features connecting the upper and lower sections (20/10) together along longitudinal portions of the upper and lower sections, wherein the attachment features includes a first hook feature (141) defined along a first longitudinal edge (see e.g., Fig. 6B) of the lower section (10) and a second hook feature (221) define along a first longitudinal edge of the upper section (20), the hook features have a shape that are complementary (as shown in Fig. 6B, the two edges of the top and bottom pieces overlap each other and have intermeshing shapes), and wherein the second piece (10) includes an a longitudinal gap (14) defined by an interior wall (end of leader line 14 in Fig. 6B) adjacent to the first hook feature (141) and the second hook feature (221) is received through the gap.
While Mantovani discloses that another predetermined component (e.g., tread 30) is mounted to the upper section (20), it does not disclose specifically disclose that the apertures in the top piece are used in its connection. Further, while Mantovani discloses that the “female” portions (14/15) of the intermeshing connections (14/221, 15/221) are found along the edges of the lower piece (10), while the upper piece (20) has the male portions (221) and therefore does not disclose that the connections have the gap in the upper portion.
Flajnik teaches another vehicle running board assembly having its running board (12) formed via extrusion (see Col. 2, lines 53-55). Both the top section and the bottom section of the running board having a plurality of apertures (21/16; see e.g., Figs. 2 and 2A), wherein a tread component (60) is affixed to the top portion via an aperture (see e.g., Fig. 6A).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the step assembly of Mantovani to include mounting holes on the top portion of the running board as taught by Flajnik a to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., using holes/fasteners to secure sub-components together) to known devices (e.g., multi-piece rigid vehicle running boards that are coupled to additional components) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
It would have been further obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the step assembly of Mantovani to reverse which mating edge includes the male and female elements to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. One skilled in the relevant art could modify Mantovani by swapping these two connection elements onto the opposite step board pieces as such a modification would be merely a rearrangement of parts as a matter of design choice. 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 19-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Particularly, the amendments to the independent claims necessitated additional searching and review of the prior art which produced the Mantovani reference which disclosed the gap-forming mating configuration.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE CLEMMONS whose telephone number is (313)446-4842. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-4:30 EST Monday-Friday.
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, J Allen Shriver can be reached on 303-297-4337. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVE CLEMMONS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights