DETAILED ACTION
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) 1 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 10,870,453 to Elder in view of US Patent 4,027,892 to Parks.
Regarding claim 1, Elder discloses an attachment structure, comprising: a cross bar body (210, 211, 213, 214 – Fig. 2) extending between a first end and a second end; a first mount (mount on one side) coupled to the first end; and a second mount (mount on other side) coupled to the second end, wherein the first mount and the second mount each include at least one cleat (920 – Fig. 9), and wherein each cleat is selectively securable by being inserted into one aperture of the plurality of mounting apertures (118, 119, 120, 121, for example; Col. 9, lines 51-63). Elder fails to disclose a base plate. However, Parks discloses a base plate (16) having a plurality of mounting apertures (32) that are spaced apart from each other across a length and a width of the base plate (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included Parks’ base plate (with holes 118-121 (Elder)) in Elder to allow for mounting the crossbar (Elder) while also allowing for providing variable partitions in the cargo bed, as taught by Parks (see abstract, last 8 lines). In the combination, the base plate would have (a) mounting apertures (some of 32 (Parks) and 118-121 (Elder)) and (b) locking apertures (rest of 32 (Parks)). To the extent necessary, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have made both sides of the base plate extend around the wheel wells and along the complete extent of the cargo bed (see left side of base plate in Parks Fig. 1) and to have extended apertures to the edge of the base plate (see right side of base plate in Parks Fig. 1) because it would maximize the amount of configurations for the removable supports. The combination fails to disclose power connections. However, Elder discloses that it is known to include power connections within mounting apertures (Fig. 13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included power connections within all of the apertures to allow the user to verify that the mounts are securely fastened to the apertures or to provide power to the mounted object, as taught by Elder (Col. 3, lines 5-13). The combination discloses (a) mounting apertures (a third of apertures 32 (Parks) and 118-121 (Elder)), (b) a plurality of power connection apertures (a third of apertures 32 (Parks)) and (c) locking apertures (a third of apertures 32 (Parks)) that are spaced apart from each other across the length and the width of the base plate, wherein the plurality of power connection apertures and the plurality of locking apertures are spaced apart and separate from each other and from the plurality of mounting apertures (all the apertures are spaced and separate), and wherein the plurality of mounting apertures, the plurality of power connection apertures, and the plurality of locking apertures are arranged in sets provided at multiple locations on the base plate and are formed in a desired pattern on the base plate (grouping the apertures as desired forms the claimed sets and desired pattern).
Regarding claim 27, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein each of the plurality of mounting apertures has a first size and a first shape (for this claim the mounting apertures are 118-121 (Elder), formed in Parks’ base plate), each of the plurality of power connection apertures has a second size and a second shape (for this claim the power apertures are half of holes 32 (Parks)), and each of the plurality of locking apertures has a third size and a third shape (for this claim the locking apertures are the other half of holes 32 (Parks)), and wherein at least one of the first size and the first shape, the second size and the second shape, and the third size and the third shape is different from others of the first size and the first shape, the second size and the second shape, and the third size and the third shape (the size and shape of the mounting apertures (118-121 – Elder) is different from the size and shape of the power connection apertures (half of 32 – Parks) and the locking apertures (other half of 32 – Parks)).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elder and Parks, further in view of US Patent 11,518,316 to Weng.
Regarding claim 2, the combination from claim 1 fails to disclose end caps. However, Weng discloses a cross bar having variably positioned attachment mounts (Figs. 2, 4) wherein each end of the cross bar body includes an attachment opening, and wherein the first mount and the second mount each include an end cap with a leg extension that is received within the attachment opening to secure the end cap to the cross bar body (Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used variably positioned mounts and caps with leg extensions inserted into attachment openings because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent cross bar configuration for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim(s) 3-4, 7-9, 12-13, 15-17, 20-21, 23, 25-26, and 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elder and Parks, further in view of US Patent 6,182,876 to Moliner.
Regarding claim 3, the combination from claim 1 fails to disclose an adjustable and fixed mount. However, Moliner discloses a cross bar wherein the first mount is adjustable and the second mount is fixed (Col. 4, lines 5-9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used Moliner’s locking and unlocking mechanism (which includes a fixed and adjustable mount) in the combination because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent crossbar securing mechanism for another to obtain predictable results. In the combination, the cleat locks into individual holes, as taught by Elder and Parks.
Regarding claim 4, the combination from claim 3 discloses an actuator (head of 46 – Moliner) that rotates a shaft (shaft of 46 – Moliner) to move the at least one cleat between a locked position and an unlocked position (Moliner Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 7, the combination from claim 3 discloses wherein the at least one cleat of the second mount is fixed relative to the cross bar body with at least one clamp bar (one of the cleats is fixed (Col. 5, lines 4-9) and the structure connecting the fixed cleat to the cross bar body (e.g. structure labeled 20 in Fig. 2) can be considered a clamp bar).
Regarding claim 8, Elder as modified by Parks and Moliner discloses an attachment system, comprising: a base plate (16 - Parks) having a plurality of mounting apertures (Parks – a third of apertures 32 plus apertures 118-121 (Elder)) that are spaced apart from each other across a length and a width of the base plate; a plurality of power connection apertures (Parks – a third of apertures 32 (all apertures have power via the modification by Elder)) that are spaced apart from each other across the length and the width of the base plate; and a plurality of locking apertures (Parks – a third of apertures 32) that are spaced apart from each other across the length and the width of the base plate, wherein the plurality of power connection apertures and the plurality of locking apertures are spaced apart and separate from each other and from the plurality of mounting apertures (all the apertures are spaced and separate), and wherein the plurality of mounting apertures, the plurality of power connection apertures, and the plurality of locking apertures are arranged in sets provided at multiple locations on the base plate and are formed in a desired pattern on the base plate (grouping the apertures as desired forms the claimed sets and desired pattern); a cross bar (Elder - 210, 211, 213, 214) extending between a first end and a second end, wherein the cross bar is mountable to the base plate in a selected one of a plurality of different mounting positions (118-121 – Elder); a first mount (Elder – mount on one side of cross bar) coupled to the first end, the first mount including a first cleat (30 – Moliner) receivable within a first mounting aperture of the plurality of mounting apertures; and a second mount (Elder – mount on other side of cross bar) coupled to the second end, the second mount including a second cleat (30 – Moliner) receivable within a second mounting aperture of the plurality of mounting apertures to install the cross bar in the selected one of the plurality of different mounting positions, wherein the first cleat is selectively adjustable relative to the cross bar and the second cleat is fixed relative to the cross bar (Moliner Col. 4, lines 5-9).
Regarding claim 9, the combination from claim 8 discloses an actuator (head of 46 – Moliner) that moves the first cleat between a locked position where the cross bar is locked to the base plate and an unlocked position where the cross bar is removable from the base plate (Moliner Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 12, the combination from claim 8 discloses wherein the first cleat comprises a first mounting foot with a first protruding portion (outermost hook portion of 30 – Moliner), and wherein: when the first cleat is in the locked position, the first protruding portion extends underneath a surface of the base plate that surrounds the first mounting aperture (Moliner Fig. 1 – cleat 30 engages under the rim of the aperture); and when the first cleat is in the unlocked position, the first protruding portion is aligned with the first mounting aperture such that the first cleat can be moved out of the first mounting aperture (with cleat 30 unlocked, the cleat is removed through the aperture).
Regarding claim 13, the combination from claim 8 discloses wherein the second cleat comprises a second mounting foot with a second protruding portion (Moliner – outermost hook portion of 30), and wherein: when the actuator is moved to the locked position, the first protruding portion is drawn towards the second protruding portion, and wherein when the actuator is moved to the unlocked position, the first protruding portion is pushed away from the second protruding portion (Moliner Figs. 2-3, when the first cleat moves to the locked position, it moves toward the second cleat, when the first cleat moves to the unlocked position, it moves away from the second cleat).
Regarding claim 15, Elder as modified by Parks and Moliner discloses a method of attaching a cross bar (Elder - 210, 211, 213, 214) to a base plate (16 – Parks) including a plurality of mounting apertures (Parks – a third of apertures 32 plus apertures 118-121 (Elder)) that are spaced apart from each other across a length and a width of the base plate, a plurality of power connection apertures (Parks – a third of apertures 32 (all apertures have power via the modification by Elder)) that are spaced apart from each other across the length and the width of the base plate; and a plurality of locking apertures (Parks – a third of apertures 32) that are spaced apart from each other across the length and the width of the base plate, wherein the plurality of power connection apertures and the plurality of locking apertures are spaced apart and separate from each other and from the plurality of mounting apertures (all the apertures are spaced and separate), and wherein the plurality of mounting apertures, the plurality of power connection apertures, and the plurality of locking apertures are arranged in sets provided at multiple locations on the base plate and are formed in a desired pattern on the base plate (grouping the apertures as desired forms the claimed sets and desired pattern); and the cross bar extending from a first end including a first mount (Elder – mount on one side of cross bar) to a second end including a second mount (Elder – mount on other side of cross bar), the method comprising: selecting a first installation position from a plurality of different possible installation positions (choosing from apertures 118-121 (Elder) in the base plate (Parks)): inserting a first cleat (Moliner – moveable cleat) of the first mount into a first mounting aperture of the plurality of mounting apertures; inserting a second cleat (Moliner – stationary cleat) of the second mount into a second mounting aperture of the plurality of mounting apertures to install the cross bar in the first installation position; and selectively adjusting a position of the first cleat relative to the cross bar and the base plate to secure the cross bar to the base plate (Moliner – drawing the first cleat towards the second cleat using 46).
Regarding claim 16, the combination from claim 15 discloses coupling an actuator (head of 46 – Moliner) to the first cleat (Fig. 2 – Moliner), selectively moving the actuator between a locked position where the cross bar is locked to the base plate and an unlocked position where the cross bar is removable from the base plate (when unlocking the clamp, the cleat is moved as claimed).
Regarding claim 17, the combination from claim 15 discloses rotating the actuator between the locked position and unlocked position, wherein rotation of the actuator causes linear movement of the first cleat relative to the base plate (Moliner Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 20, the combination from claim 15 discloses fixing the second cleat to the cross bar such that only the first cleat is adjustable relative to the cross bar (Moliner Col. 4, lines 5-9).
Regarding claim 21, the combination from claim 15 discloses wherein the base plate is positioned within a cargo area defined by a floor surrounded by a plurality of walls (Elder/Parks), and including: removing the first cleat of the first mount from the first mounting aperture; removing the second cleat of the second mount from the second mounting aperture to remove the cross bar from the first installation position (Elder/Parks – removing the cross bar mounts from two of the apertures (119, 121 (Elder), for example)); inserting the first cleat of the first mount into a third mounting aperture (Elder – 118) of the plurality of mounting apertures; and inserting the second cleat of the second mount into a fourth mounting aperture (Elder – 120) of the plurality of mounting apertures to install the cross bar in a second installation position different from the first installation position, wherein the third mounting aperture and the fourth mounting aperture are different from the first mounting aperture and the second mounting aperture (Elder Fig. 1, as modified by Parks).
Regarding claim 23, the combination from claim 8 discloses wherein the base plate includes a plurality of power connection apertures (Parks – a third of apertures 32 (all apertures have power via the modification by Elder)) and a plurality of locking apertures (Parks – a third of apertures 32) that are arranged with the plurality of mounting apertures to form sets of apertures that are provided at multiple locations on the base plate (grouping the apertures as desired forms the claimed sets), and wherein the cross bar is selectively securable to different mounting apertures selected from the sets of apertures to achieve the plurality of different mounting positions (the cross bar is securable at different positions as claimed (Elder/Parks)).
Regarding claim 25, the combination from claim 3 discloses wherein the cross bar body is mountable to the base plate in a selected one of a plurality of different mounting positions (Elder – 118-121, as modified by Parks), and wherein the at least one cleat comprises at least a first cleat at the first mount and a second cleat at the second mount, and wherein the first cleat is inserted through a first mounting aperture of the plurality of mounting apertures and the second cleat is inserted through a second mounting aperture of the plurality of mounting apertures to install the cross bar body in the selected one of the plurality of different mounting positions (Moliner – cleat is inserted through the aperture formed by the lip of the aperture (similar to lip 18 in Moliner Fig. 1)).
Regarding claim 26, the combination from claim 25 discloses wherein the base plate includes a plurality of power connection apertures (Parks – a third of apertures 32 (all apertures have power via the modification by Elder)) and a plurality of locking apertures (Parks – a third of apertures 32) that are arranged with the plurality of mounting apertures to form sets of apertures that are provided at multiple locations on the base plate (grouping the apertures as desired forms the claimed sets), and wherein the cross bar is selectively securable to different mounting apertures selected from the sets of apertures to achieve the plurality of different mounting positions (the cross bar is securable at different positions as claimed (Elder/Parks)).
Regarding claim 28, the combination from claim 8 discloses wherein each of the plurality of mounting apertures has a first size and a first shape (for this claim the mounting apertures are 118-121 (Elder), formed in Parks’ base plate), each of the plurality of power connection apertures has a second size and a second shape (for this claim the power apertures are half of holes 32 (Parks)), and each of the plurality of locking apertures has a third size and a third shape (for this claim the locking apertures are the other half of holes 32 (Parks)), and wherein at least one of the first size and the first shape, the second size and the second shape, and the third size and the third shape is different from others of the first size and the first shape, the second size and the second shape, and the third size and the third shape (the size and shape of the mounting apertures (118-121 – Elder) is different from the size and shape of the power connection apertures (half of 32 – Parks) and the locking apertures (other half of 32 – Parks)).
Regarding claim 29, the combination from claim 15 discloses wherein each of the plurality of mounting apertures has a first size and a first shape (for this claim the mounting apertures are 118-121 (Elder), formed in Parks’ base plate), each of the plurality of power connection apertures has a second size and a second shape (for this claim the power apertures are half of holes 32 (Parks)), and each of the plurality of locking apertures has a third size and a third shape (for this claim the locking apertures are the other half of holes 32 (Parks)), and wherein at least one of the first size and the first shape, the second size and the second shape, and the third size and the third shape is different from others of the first size and the first shape, the second size and the second shape, and the third size and the third shape (the size and shape of the mounting apertures (118-121 – Elder) is different from the size and shape of the power connection apertures (half of 32 – Parks) and the locking apertures (other half of 32 – Parks)).
Claim(s) 5-6 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elder, Parks and Moliner, further in view of US Patent 4,976,576 to Mahaney.
Regarding claim 5, the combination from claim 3 fails to disclose a lock. However, Mahaney discloses a threaded connection that includes a lock (88 – Figs. 5-7) moveable between a blocking position (Fig. 6) to prevent rotation of the bolt and an unblocking position (with 94 depressed) to allow rotation of the bolt. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used Mahaney’s lock and actuator head shape in the combination to ensure that the connection does not loosen while the vehicle is moving.
Regarding claim 6, the combination from claim 5 discloses wherein the lock comprises a lock pin (93/94 - Mahaney) that is biased to the blocking position (via spring 87 – Mahaney).
Regarding claim 18, the combination from claim 5 discloses selectively moving a lock pin (93/94 - Mahaney) between a blocking position (with spring 87 extended (Mahaney)) to prevent rotation of the actuator and an unblocking position (with spring 87 compressed (Mahaney)) to allow rotation of the actuator.
Regarding claim 19, the combination from claim 5 discloses biasing the lock pin to the blocking position (via spring 87 – Mahaney).
Claim(s) 22 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elder, Parks and Moliner, further in view of US Patent 12,337,746 to Phillips.
Regarding claims 22 and 24, Elder as modified in claim 8 discloses wherein the base plate is received within a vehicle cargo area that comprises a floor surrounded by a plurality of walls (Elder/Parks). The combination fails to disclose the claimed mounting. However, Phillips discloses a base plate that is mounted to the floor or at least one wall of the plurality of walls such that the plurality of mounting apertures are spaced outwardly of the floor or that at least one wall by an open gap (Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used a raised mounting with the fasteners extending through the apertures (Fig. 3) because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent securing element for another to obtain predictable results. In the combination, the first cleat extends through the first mounting aperture and the second cleat extends through the second mounting aperture and into the open gap.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 and 14 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to applicant’s argument that the apertures in the prior art combination cannot be interpreted as the three groups of claimed apertures (page 1), the examiner disagrees. Nothing in the claims prohibits the interpretation that one group of apertures is the mounting apertures, a second group is the power connection apertures, and a third group is the locking apertures. Applicant argues that the prior art fails to distinguish between the sets of apertures, but this is not required. All that is required is that the prior art disclose apertures that satisfy the claim language. In this case, the apertures in Elder and Parks can be interpreted in a manner that satisfies the claims.
As to applicant’s argument that having power in all the apertures is problematic (page 2), the examiner disagrees. Having power in all the apertures does not preclude some of the apertures from being considered mounting apertures and some of the apertures from being considered locking apertures.
As to applicant’s argument that “grouping the apertures as desired forms the claimed sets and desired pattern” is a conclusory restatement (page 3), the prohibition on conclusory statements applies to the rationale to combine, not to a statement of what the prior art discloses. In this case, the rationale for making the Elder/Parks combination is provided in the rejection. Once the combination is made, the statement that “grouping the apertures as desired forms the claimed sets and desired pattern” indicates what is disclosed by Elder/Parks as it applies to the claim language. Basically, any grouping of the apertures in Elder/Parks would satisfy the claim language.
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 SCOTT T MCNURLEN whose telephone number is (313)446-4898. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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.
/SCOTT T MCNURLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
