DETAILED ACTION
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
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 10, 13, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bale et al. US 12584323 B2.
Regarding independent claim 1, Bale et al. discloses [a system, comprising:
a mounting bracket 50] (Fig. 10-11; Col. 9, lines 52-62) including
[a chassis mount 104 configured to couple to a chassis of a racing vehicle;] (Fig. 10-11; Col. 10, lines 8-19; Bale et al. discloses a first attachment portion configured to attach to a structural member of a scaffolding assembly. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this corresponds to the claimed “chassis mount” because it is mounting interface configured to couple to a supporting structural member. Also, the recited “racing vehicle” merely identifies an intended environment of use and does not structurally limit the claimed mount. Accordingly, Bale et al. teaches or at least renders obvious a “chassis mount configured to couple to a chassis of a racing vehicle.”)
[a part clip 100 configured to attach to an additional racing part by manual operation;] (Fig. 10-11; Col. 10, lines 8-19; Bale et al. discloses a second attachment portion configured to attach to another structural member of the scaffolding assembly. Under the broadest reasonably interpretation, this corresponds to the claimed “part clip” because it is an attachment structure configured to secure an additional component. Also, the recited “additional racing part” merely identifies an intended environment of use and does not structurally limit the claimed clip. Bale et al. further teaches manual attachment and removal of the connected structures via securing bolts 58, 108 and nuts.) and
[wherein the chassis mount is coupled to the part clip.] (Fig. 11; Col. 9, lines 52-62)
Regarding claim 2, Bale et al. discloses [an arm 76, 78 connecting the chassis mount to the part clip.] (Fig. 10-11; Col. 9, lines 52-62)
Regarding independent claim 10, Bale et al. discloses a system, comprising:
[a mounting bracket 50 including
one or more part prongs 102 configured to clip to a vehicle part;] (Fig. 10-11; Col. 9, lines 52-62; Col. 10, lines 8-19) and
[an arm 76 coupled to the part prongs.] (Fig. 10-11; Col. 9, lines 52-62)
Regarding claim 13, Bale et al. discloses [one or more chassis prongs 106 configured to clip to a chassis of a vehicle;] (Fig. 10-11; Col. 9, lines 52-62; Col. 10, lines 8-19) and
[wherein the chassis prongs 78 are coupled to the arm.] (Fig. 10-11; Col. 9, lines 52-62)
Regarding independent claim 19, Bale et al. discloses [decoupling a part clip of a mounting bracket from a racing part through manual operation; and coupling a replacement racing part to the part clip through manual operation.] (Fig. 10-11; Col. 10, lines 20-29; Col. 10, lines 51-61; Bale et al. discloses coupling decoupling structural members relative to the mounting bracket through manual operation using threaded bolts and nuts. Manually tightening and loosening threaded fasteners to attach or remove a component from the mounting structure corresponds to the claimed step of “decoupling a part clip of a mounting bracket from a racing part through manual operation” and “coupling a replacement racing part to the part clip through manual operation.” Also, the recited “racing part” merely identifies an intended environment of use and does not structurally limit the claimed clip.)
Regarding claim 20, Bale et al. discloses [coupling the mounting bracket 50 to a vehicle.] (Fig. 10-11; Col. 10, lines 8-19; Bale et al. discloses a clamping structure configured to attach to a structural member of a scaffolding assembly. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this corresponds to the claimed “mounting bracket” because it is mounting interface configured to couple to a supporting structural member. Also, the recited “racing vehicle” merely identifies an intended environment of use and does not structurally limit the claimed mount. Accordingly, Bale et al. teaches or at least renders obvious a “chassis mount configured to couple to a chassis of a racing vehicle.”)
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.
Claims 5, 7, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bale et al. in view Shely et al. US 4640479 A.
Regarding claim 5, Bale et al. does not disclose a strap configured to secure the mounting bracket to the chassis.
Shely et al. teaches [a strap 56 configured to secure the mounting bracket to the chassis;] (Fig. 5-7; Col. 3, lines 10-18; Shely et al. discloses a muting structure including a strap configured to secure wires/cords to a supporting structure. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the disclosed strap corresponds to the claimed “strap configured to secure the mounting bracket to the chassis,” as both are flexible securing members used to retain a mounted structure relative to another structure.) [wherein the strap includes a zip tie 52.] (Fig. 5; Col. 57-62)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the strap of Shely et al. with the system of Bale et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for securement of the mounting bracket to a support structural member with increased retention stability and ease of installation , thus preventing relative movement or slippage between the mounting bracket and the chassis or support structure.
Regarding claim 7, Bale et al., as modified, already discloses all of the claimed limitations, including the zip tie recited in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 14, Bale et al. does not disclose a strap configured to secure the mounting bracket to the chassis.
Shely et al. teaches [a strap 56 configured to secure the mounting bracket to the chassis;] (Fig. 5-7; Col. 3, lines 10-18; Shely et al. discloses a muting structure including a strap configured to secure wires/cords to a supporting structure. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the disclosed strap corresponds to the claimed “strap configured to secure the mounting bracket to the chassis,” as both are flexible securing members used to retain a mounted structure relative to another structure.) [wherein the strap includes a zip tie 52.] (Fig. 5; Col. 57-62)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the strap of Shely et al. with the system of Bale et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for securement of the mounting bracket to a support structural member with increased retention stability and ease of installation , thus preventing relative movement or slippage between the mounting bracket and the chassis or support structure.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bale et al. in view Shely et al. and further in view of Vaccaro US 20200036176 A1.
Regarding claim 6, Bale et al., as modified, further discloses [an arm 76, 78 connecting the chassis mount to the part clip.] (Fig. 10-11; Col. 9, lines 52-62)
Bale et al., as modified, does not disclose wherein the arm defines a strap passage through which the strap extends.
Vaccaro teaches [wherein the arm defines a strap passage through which the strap extends.] (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0023; Vaccaro discloses an arm defining an aperture through which a bolt extends. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed “strap passage” broadly encompasses an opening configured to permit passage of a securing member, and is not limited to a particular type of fastener. Accordingly, the aperture of Vaccaro corresponds to the claimed strap passage because it is capable of allowing a strap or similar securing member to extend therethrough.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the aperture passage of Vaccaro with the system of Bale, as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for routing or guiding a strap through the arm to facilitate secure fastening of the mounting bracket to the chassis, thus improving stability and preventing displacement of the securing member during use.
Regarding claim 15, Bale et al., as modified, does not disclose wherein the arm defines a strap passage through which the strap extends.
Vaccaro teaches [wherein the arm defines a strap passage through which the strap extends.] (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0023; Vaccaro discloses an arm defining an aperture through which a bolt extends. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed “strap passage” broadly encompasses an opening configured to permit passage of a securing member, and is not limited to a particular type of fastener. Accordingly, the aperture of Vaccaro corresponds to the claimed strap passage because it is capable of allowing a strap or similar securing member to extend therethrough.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the aperture passage of Vaccaro with the system of Bale, as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for routing or guiding a strap through the arm to facilitate secure fastening of the mounting bracket to the chassis, thus improving stability and preventing displacement of the securing member during use.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bale et al. in view Peters US 20050279541 A1.
Regarding claim 11, Bale et al. does not disclose wherein the vehicle part includes a shock absorber cannister.
Peters teaches [wherein the vehicle part includes a shock absorber cannister.] (Paragraph 0049)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the shock absorber canister of Peters with the system of Bale et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for use of the mounting structure with commonly encountered vehicle suspension components as an alternative mounting target, thus expanding applicability of the mounting structure to additional conventional vehicle parts.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bale et al. in view Schmutz US 10721876 B1.
Regarding claim 11, Bale et al. does not disclose wherein the vehicle part includes a fuel filter.
Peters teaches [therein the vehicle part includes a fuel filter.] (Fig. 8A; Col. 32-42)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the fuel filter of Schmutz with the system of Bale et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for use of the mounting structure with commonly encountered vehicle components as an alternative mounting target, thus expanding applicability of the mounting structure to additional conventional vehicle parts.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3-4, 8-9, and 16-18 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 3 and 17 contains the limitation a liner disposed in the chassis mount to prevent slippage between the chassis mount and the chassis. The closest prior art, Bale et al. US 12584323 B2, discloses a chassis mount, but does not disclose a liner disposed in the chassis mount to prevent slippage between the chassis mount and the chassis.
Claim 8 and 16 contains the limitation wherein the chassis mount has one or more chassis prongs; and the chassis prongs define a chassis strap notch. The closest prior art, Bale et al. US 12584323 B2, discloses wherein the chassis mount has one or more chassis prongs, but does not disclose the chassis prongs defining a chassis strap notch.
Claim 9 contains the limitation wherein the part clip has one or more part prongs; and the part prongs define a part strap notch. The closest prior art, Bale et al. US 12584323 B2, discloses wherein the part clip has one or more part prongs, but does not disclose the part prongs defining a part strap notch.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hull et al. US 10422365 B2 – comprises a clamp for clamping optical fiber to a tube. The clamp has a body portion coupled at one end to a first arm and at an opposing end to a second arm, and a resilient portion to permit the clamp to elastically deform from a closed state in which the clamp is fastened around the tube to an open state in which the clamp is radially moveable off the tube. At least one of the body portion, the first arm and the second arm has a clamping surface to clamp a portion of the optical fiber against the tube when the clamp is fastened around the tube, and a clamping mechanism operable to extend at least part of the clamping surface towards the tube when the clamp is secured to the tube to increase a clamping force applied by the clamping surface.
Sherman US 4934635 A – comprises a clamp assembly having two clamp halves. A cushion insert is disposed within the clamp halves to retain a tube, conduit, or other cylindrical member within the clamp assembly. The cushion insert includes means for allowing the cushion insert to flex and be disposed about the tube.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohamed Medani whose telephone number is (703)756-1917. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11:00 am - 7:30 pm.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571) 272-6265. 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.
/Mohamed M Medani/Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights