DETAILED ACTION
The following action is in response to application 18/377,272 filed on October 5, 2023.
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 .
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: the limitations of claims 6 and 8 are not disclosed in the specification. Applicant should amend the specification in the appropriate locations to include these.
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 1-11 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.
With regard to claim 1:
On line 10, the limitation of “the lower surfaces” lacks antecedent basis.
On line 11, the limitation of “the vehicle’s tires” lacks antecedent basis.
On line 12, the limitation of “the upper surfaces” lacks antecedent basis.
On lines 12-13, the limitation of “the feet of the vehicle driver” lacks antecedent basis.
On line 16, the limitation of “the all-terrain vehicle’s frame” lacks antecedent basis.
See suggested amendment to claim 1 in Suggestions for Applicant section below.
With regard to claim 3, the limitation of “the components” lacks antecedent basis. It is suggested applicant replace “the components” with “the panels.”
Claims 10-11 contain the trademark/trade name Honda and SHERP. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe an ATV and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. It is suggested applicant cancel claims 10-11.
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 (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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Danze ‘040. With regard to claim 1, Danze teaches an apparatus comprising: one or more floorboard panels 74/76; one or more support pieces (Fig. 2); one or more fastening apertures (@55/56); one or more fasteners (@55/56); wherein the one or more floorboard panels, one or more support pieces, and one or more fastening apertures are combined into a vehicle floorboard structure 5 for an all-terrain vehicle; wherein the structure is shaped such that: the lower surfaces of the structure provide elevated clearance above the vehicle's tires (Fig. 1), the upper surfaces of the structure provide a seating position for the feet of the vehicle's driver (paragraph 33), and the one or more fastening apertures (@55/56) are positioned to enable attachment to the all-terrain vehicle; wherein the structure is secured to the all-terrain vehicle's frame by the one or more fasteners to the frame through the fastening apertures (paragraph 33). With regard to claim 2, Danze teaches the apparatus, wherein the floorboard panels are comprised of one or more metals (paragraph 35). With regard to claim 3, Danze teaches the apparatus, wherein the vehicle floorboard structure is combined by welding the panels (@77). With regard to claim 9, Danze teaches the apparatus, wherein the fastening apertures (@55/56) are placed at locations which correspond to fastening locations of a removed floorboard on the all-terrain vehicle's frame (e.g. remove original and replaced with duplicate).
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahashi ‘863. With regard to claim 1, Takahashi teaches an apparatus comprising: one or more floorboard panels 61/62/63; one or more support pieces (Fig. 5); one or more fastening apertures 72; one or more fasteners 73; wherein the one or more floorboard panels, one or more support pieces, and one or more fastening apertures are combined into a vehicle floorboard structure (Fig. 2) for an all-terrain vehicle; wherein the structure is shaped such that: the lower surfaces of the structure provide elevated clearance above the vehicle's tires (Fig. 2), the upper surfaces of the structure provide a seating position for the feet of the vehicle's driver (Fig. 5), and the one or more fastening apertures 72 are positioned to enable attachment to the all-terrain vehicle; wherein the structure is secured to the all-terrain vehicle's frame by the one or more fasteners 73 to the frame through the fastening apertures 72.
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 (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.
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) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danze as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Peek ‘377. With regard to claim 4, Danze teaches the apparatus, but lacks the specific teaching wherein the one or more floorboard panels are laser-cut to provide the structure's shape. Peek teaches a similar apparatus for an all-terrain vehicle (paragraph 29), wherein sheet metal panels 42/44 are laser-cut (paragraph 33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Danze to employ laser-cut panels and features of the panels in view of Peek with reasonable expectation for success in order to provide a manufacturing process for providing more precise parts. With regard to claims 5, Danze and Peek teach the apparatus, wherein one or more floor holes (paragraph 35/Fig. 2) are laser-cut (paragraph 33) through both surfaces of the one or more floorboard panels (Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danze as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dowden ‘793. With regard to claim 7, Danze teaches the apparatus, but lacks the specific teaching wherein the one or more fasteners are bolts paired with nuts. Dowden teaches a similar apparatus for an all-terrain vehicle (paragraph 73), wherein fasteners for various parts of a vehicle and the frame (including a floorboard panel 63) are bolts paired with nuts (paragraph 91). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Danze to employ bolts paired with nuts as the fasteners in view of Dowden with reasonable expectation for success in order to employ an effective securing means as the fasteners. With regard to claim 8, Danze and Dowden teach the apparatus, wherein the one or more fasteners (@55/56) are further joined with one or more washers between the bolt-head and fastening aperture (paragraph 91). Please Note: All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Therefore the location of the washer between the bolt head and aperature would have been an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Johnson ‘134. With regard to claim 6, Takahashi teaches the apparatus wherein the one or more floorboard panels are comprised of synthetic resin or the like (Col. 4, lines 53-54), but lacks the specific teaching of the panels comprising of a carbon-fiber composite material. Johnson teaches a similar apparatus for an all-terrain vehicle comprising a floorboard 150 comprising of a carbon-fiber composite material (Col. 8, lines 23-33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Takahashi to employ panels comprising of a carbon-fiber composite material in view of Johnson with reasonable expectation for success in order to provide a lightweight material that is also strong and durable.
Suggestions for Applicant
It is suggested applicant cancel claims 10-11, and amend the specification and claim 3 (as suggested above). Also, the following amendment to claim 1 is suggested to overcome the 35 USC 112 issues as well as the cited prior art:
1.An apparatus comprising:
one or more floorboard panels;
the floorboard panels comprising: a base panel comprising two flat stepped plates and two lateral panels attached to opposite ends of said base panel;
one or more support pieces;
one or more fastening apertures;
one or more fasteners;
wherein the one or more floorboard panels, one or more support pieces, and one or more fastening apertures are combined into a vehicle floorboard structure for an all-terrain vehicle;
wherein the structure is shaped such that:
tires of the vehiclea driver of the vehicledirectly to a frame of the all-terrain vehicle
The suggested amendment is consistent with terminology in the specification and would overcome the previously cited art as applied. Although Maki ‘106 (cited below) teaches a similar stepped base panel, lateral panels and apertures, Maki does not specifically teach the floorboards are secured directly to the frame via the apertures.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Maki ‘106 teaches a similar apparatus comprising: wheels 12/14, a floorboard 30, panels, support pieces and apertures (Figs. 2 and 7), wherein the panels comprise of metal or carbon-fiber (Col. 4, lines 53-65).
Bergman ‘556 teaches a similar apparatus comprising: wheels 12, a floorboard 30, panels and support pieces (Fig. 2B), wherein a metal panel 42 (Col. 3 .lines 36-38) is directly connected to a frame of the vehicle, and the panels comprise of a thermoplastic material (Col. 5, lines 15-17).
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
Submission of your response by facsimile transmission is encouraged. The central facsimile number is (571) 273-8300. Recognizing the fact that reducing cycle time in the processing and examination of patent applications will effectively increase a patent's term, it is to your benefit to submit responses by facsimile transmission whenever permissible. Such submission will place the response directly in our examining group's hands and will eliminate Post Office processing and delivery time as well as the PTO's mail room processing and delivery time. For a complete list of correspondence not permitted by facsimile transmission, see MPEP 502.01. In general, most responses and/or amendments not requiring a fee, as well as those requiring a fee but charging such fee to a deposit account, can be submitted by facsimile transmission. Responses requiring a fee which applicant is paying by check should not be submitting by facsimile transmission separately from the check.
Responses submitted by facsimile transmission should include a Certificate of Transmission (MPEP 512). The following is an example of the format the certification might take:
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being facsimile transmitted to the Patent and Trademark Office (Fax No. (571) 273-8300) on ____________ (Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate: _____________________________________
_____________________________________
(Signature)
If your response is submitted by facsimile transmission, you are hereby reminded that the original should be retained as evidence of authenticity (37 CFR 1.4 and MPEP 502.02). Please do not separately mail the original or another copy unless required by the Patent and Trademark Office. Submission of the original response or a follow-up copy of the response after your response has been transmitted by facsimile will only cause further unnecessary delays in the processing of your application; duplicate responses where fees are charged to a deposit account may result in those fees being charged twice.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROGER L PANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7096. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 05:30-16:00.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached at 571-270-3415. 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.
/ROGER L PANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/ROGER L. PANG/
Examiner
Art Unit 3655B
November 19, 2025