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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Comments
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 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.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element T should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
The definition of integral according to Merriam Webster’s online dictionary is “essential to completeness” or “formed as a unit” with another part. For examination of the claims on the merits, it is not being taken to mean manufactured or formed in one singular piece. For example, components mechanically fastened to one another are considered integrally formed as are components adhered, glued, or welded to one another.
Further, it is often obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form two separate components as a one-piece construction as the courts have held "that the use of a one-piece construction” instead of a structure disclosed in a prior art reference “would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice" (In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965)) based on at least ease of manufacturing, materials criteria, and time. Still further, the claims in this application are directed to a product not a method of manufacture, and the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production (MPEP 2113) unless it results in a significant structural difference.
The text of those sections of Title 35, US Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 7, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Wilckens et al. (10427616).
For claim 1, Wilckens et al. disclose a vehicle (FIG.1), said vehicle comprising:
a chassis (implicit); a plurality of wheels (FIG.1) operatively connected to the chassis;
a passenger compartment (FIG.1) supported by the chassis; and
at least one multi-use accessory retention loop (14, FIGS. 5-6) integrally formed with a base structure (a part) of the vehicle (such as for example, the part of the vehicle 18 shown in FIG.6) such that a space (not numbered but see in FIG.6) is formed between the at least one loop and the base structure, the loop structured and operable to retain a passenger personal item.
PNG
media_image1.png
456
571
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For claim 2, the vehicle further comprises
a sweater basket and golf bag retention structure (rear vehicle portion as shown in FIG.1, behind the cab/seats) structured and operable to stow passenger personal items,
wherein the base structure comprises the retention structure and the at least one multi-use accessory retention loop is integrally formed on the sweater basket and golf bag retention structure.
For claim 7, the passenger compartment comprises:
a seating structure (not numbered but shown in FIG.1) including a seat bottom (implicit), a seat back (shown) and a pair of hip restraints (doors are shown); and
an instrument panel (not numbered, but shown in FIG.1), wherein the base structure comprises the instrument panel,
wherein the at least one multi-use accessory retention loop (14,28) is disposed on the instrument panel.
PNG
media_image2.png
428
653
media_image2.png
Greyscale
For claim 20, Wilckens et al. disclose a vehicle sweater basket and golf bag retention structure (rear portion of the vehicle shown in FIG.1) mounted to at least one rear strut of a canopy system of the vehicle and structured and operable to stow passenger personal items,
wherein said sweater basket and golf bag retention structure comprises:
at least one multi-use accessory retention loop (14) defining a space structured and operable to retain a passenger personal item within the space.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Fulford et al.
Fulford et al. (2021/0052958) discloses a vehicle (FIG.1), said vehicle comprising:
a chassis (implicit); a plurality of wheels (FIG.1) operatively connected to the chassis;
a passenger compartment (at 16, FIG.1) supported by the chassis; and
at least one multi-use accessory retention loop (42, FIGS. 3-4) integrally formed with a base structure (a part) of the vehicle such that a space (seen in FIGS.3-4) is formed between the loop and the base structure, the loop structured and operable to removably retain a passenger personal item within the space.
PNG
media_image3.png
355
480
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fulford et al. as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Wilckens et al. (10427616).
In each of claims 3-5 and 7-9, the bast structure, which constitutes a particular part of the vehicle, necessarily comprises that part of the vehicle.
Fulford et al. (2021/0052958) discloses a vehicle (FIG.1) as set forth above.
The vehicle further includes:
a canopy system (FIG.1) structured and operable to protect passengers within the passenger compartment from rain, water and sunlight,
said canopy system comprising:
at least one front strut (20);
at least one rear strut (20); and
a canopy (18) mountable to the at least one front strut and the at least one rear strut.
PNG
media_image4.png
418
499
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The at least one retention loop is disclosed to be disposed on one of the struts (20) and shown on the front strut (FIG.2) (claims 4-5).
Fulford et al. further provide the passenger compartment comprises:
a seating structure (16) including a seat bottom, a seat back and a pair of hip restraints (not numbered, shown in FIG.1); and
an instrument panel (not numbered, but shown in FIG.1).
Fulford et al. fails to provide the loop disposed on the canopy (claim 3), on the instrument panel (claim 7), on the seat back (claim 8), or on the hip restraint (claim 9).
Wilckens et al. teaches at least one multi-use accessory retention loop (14) on an instrument panel and at the rear of the vehicle (FIG.1). However, the loop is not limited to attachment at the instrument panel as other locations are anticipated. Specifically, the loop can be disposed ‘at one or more desired locations of the vehicle’ (Col 4, lines 21-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the retention loop of Fulford et al. at any of the recited locations (canopy, instrument panel, seat back, or hip restraint) as taught by Wilckens et al. as an obvious expedient based on a user’s desired configuration.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fulford et al. as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Stautzenberger, Sr. (2009/0224016) and further in view of Wilckens et al. (10427616).
For claim 6, the bast structure, which constitutes a particular part of the vehicle, necessarily comprises that part of the vehicle.
Fulford et al. lack the recitation of a sand bottle retention cup on a strut or the loop mounted thereto.
Stautzemberger, Sr. teaches sand bottle retention cup (12) mounted (via arm 9) to a golf cart strut (1).
PNG
media_image5.png
238
355
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have mounted a sand bottle retention cup as taught by Stautzenberger, Sr. to the strut of Fulford et al. in order to retain a sand bottle therein.
Wilckens et al. teaches at least one multi-use accessory retention loop (14) on an instrument panel and at the rear of the vehicle (FIG.1). However, the loop is not limited to attachment at the instrument panel as other locations are anticipated. Specifically, the loop can be disposed ‘at one or more desired locations of the vehicle’ (Col 4, lines 21-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have relocated, as taught by Wilckens et al., the retention loop of Fulford et al., as modified, for disposal on the sand bottle retention cup as an obvious expedient based on a user’s desired configuration.
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fulford et al. as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Hardy et al. (2005/0224539) and further in view of Wilckens et al. (10427616).
For claims 2 and 10, the bast structure, which constitutes a particular part of the vehicle, necessarily comprises that part of the vehicle.
Fulford et al. lack the vehicle including a sweater basket, a feature taught by Hardy et al.
PNG
media_image6.png
275
348
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the vehicle of Fulford et al. with a sweater basket as taught by Hardy et al. in order to contain a sweater therein.
Fulford et al., as modified above, fails to provide the loop disposed on the sweater basket.
Wilckens et al. teaches at least one multi-use accessory retention loop (14) on an instrument panel and at the rear of the vehicle (FIG.1). However, the loop is not limited to attachment at the instrument panel as other locations are anticipated. Specifically, the loop can be disposed ‘at one or more desired locations of the vehicle’ (Col 4, lines 21-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have relocated, as taught by Wilckens et al., the retention loop of Fulford et al., as modified, for disposal on the sweater basket as an obvious expedient based on a user’s desired configuration.
Claims 10-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hardy et al. 539 in view of Wilckens et al. (10427616).
For claim 10, Hardy et al. (2005/0224539) disclose a vehicle, said vehicle comprising all of the feature recited except at least one multi-use accessory retention loop disposed on the vehicle and structured and operable to retain a passenger personal item.
This feature is taught by Wilckens et al. where at least one multi-use accessory retention loop (14) is disposed on an instrument panel and at the rear of the vehicle (FIG.1). The loop is not limited to attachment at the instrument panel as other locations are anticipated. Specifically, the loop can be disposed ‘at one or more desired locations of the vehicle’ (Col 4, lines 21-23). Wilckens et al. additionally provides for a plurality of the loops (14) at different locations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided two or more loops as taught by Wilckens et al. for use with and at multiple locations of the vehicle of Hardy et al. in order to retain items a user may wish to secure and further to have provided the two or more retention loops for disposal on any of the sweater basket and golf bag retention structure, canopy, rear strut, front strut, back seat, or hip restraint as an obvious expedient based on a user’s desired configuration.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hardy et al. 539, as modified above with respect to claim 10, and further in view of Stautzenberger, Sr.
Hardy et al., as modified, lack the recitation of a sand bottle retention cup on a strut or the loop mounted thereto.
Stautzemberger, Sr. (2009/0224016) teaches sand bottle retention cup (12) mounted (via arm 9) to a golf cart strut (1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have mounted a sand bottle retention cup as taught by Stautzenberger, Sr. to the strut of Hardy et al. in order to retain a sand bottle therein and further to have located, as taught by Wilckens et al., at least one retention loop for disposal on the sand bottle retention cup as an obvious expedient based on a user’s desired configuration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) as amended 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 HILARY L GUTMAN whose telephone number is 571.272.6662. 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, PAUL DICKSON can be reached on 571.272.7742. 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 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. Should you have questions, 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.
/HILARY L GUTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614