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
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) 10-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monge (US 2016/0023705) in view of Sigg (CH 234492).
Monge discloses a tilting vehicle, comprising a driver seat (see Figs. 8, 9); a pillion seat that is positioned behind the driver seat (1); and a luggage fastening device for fastening an item of luggage to the tilting vehicle (2), the luggage fastening device being arranged below the pillion seat (see Figs. 1, 2); except does not expressly disclose the particulars of the luggage fastening device as claimed.
However, Sigg discloses a tilting vehicle, comprising: a luggage fastening device for fastening an item of luggage to the tilting vehicle, wherein the luggage fastening device comprises at least one tensioning element (s) which, in an operating position, is configured to at least partially engage around the item of luggage (Fig. 3); and a stowage device (d, g, o, etc.) to which a first end of the at least one tensioning element is connected; a retaining portion of the tilting vehicle (tray shown in Fig. 3), to which a free second end of the tensioning element is configured for releasable connection to the retaining portion, and the stowage device is configured for selective take-up and removal of at least one portion of the at least one tensioning element (via d, etc. Fig. 1).
Because Monge and Sigg both teach cargo securement strap systems for tilting vehciles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the retractable strap system taught by Sigg for the fixed strap system taught by Monge to achieve the predictable result of securing cargo ti the pillion seat of the tilting vehicle.
Sigg further discloses the at least one tensioning element is configured to be able to be pulled out of the stowage device in order to bring the at least one tensioning element from the stowage position into the operating position (functional/intended use recitation); the at least one tensioning element is a strap or rope (s); the at least one tensioning element comprises, at the free second end, a fastening element configured for a releasable connection to the retaining portion (r); the fastening element is a hook-shaped fastening element (see Fig. 1); the stowage device is configured for the selective winding up or unwinding of the at least one tensioning element (functional/intended use recitation); the stowage device comprises a winder for automatically winding up the at least one tensioning element (d); the stowage device comprises an arrester configured to arrest the at least one tensioning element in a partially or completely unwound state with respect to the stowage device (h).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sigg Monge (US 2016/0023705) in view of Sigg (CH 234492) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Halter (US 5251464).
Monge as modified above discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the respective positions of the opening/retaining portions as claimed.
However, Halter teaches a similar device wherein at least one opening (40) of the stowage device is assigned to a first end of the seat (right side Fig. 1) and the retaining portion (240) is assigned to a second end of the seat (left side Fig. 1), the at least one opening is provided for the selective take-up and removal of the at least one tensioning element (col. 1, ll. 58 – col. 2, ll. 12).
Because Sigg and Halter both teach retractable attachment mechanisms, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the coil/receiver attachment point taught by Halter for the coil/attachment point taught by Sigg to achieve the predictable result of securely attaching the retractable attachment mechanism to the receiver attachment point.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sigg Monge (US 2016/0023705) in view of Sigg (CH 234492) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Brickel (US 3990279).
Monge as modified above discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above and further including the tilting vehicle being a motorbike except does not expressly disclose the pair of tensioning elements as claimed.
However, Brickel teaches a similar device wherein the at least one tensioning element is two tensioning elements each having a free end, so that two free ends of the two tensioning elements are disposed outside the stowage device (14, 16, Fig. 2).
Because Sigg and Brickel both teach retractable attachment mechanisms, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the attachment mechanism with two tensioning elements and free ends as taught by Brickel for the the attachment mechanism with one tensioning element and free end taught by Sigg.
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a second tensioning element with free end as taught by Brickel, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) s 10-17, 19, and 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.
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 PETER N. HELVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1423. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-7pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/PETER N HELVEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
January 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights