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 abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is longer than 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claims 18 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18 depends from claim 1, and is an exact copy of claim 5. Thus, it will instead be examined under the assumption that it is dependent on claim 14 instead.
Claim 19 recites “and/or the buckling bracket, at the fastening hook end”, it should be changed to “and/or the at least two buckling brackets, at the fastening hook end”
Claim 20 recites “at least one buckling bracket in response receipt of the predefined pressure from the free hook end of the hook”, the word receipt does not make sense here and since there is no mention of it in the specification, it should be changed to “at least one buckling bracket in response to the predefined pressure from the free hook end of the hook”.
Claim 20 recites “at least one buckling bracket of the at least two buckling brackets”, but depends from claim 1 which only has “a buckling bracket”. Thus, it will instead be examined under the assumption that it is dependent on claim 14 instead.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 6, 13 and 19 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.
Claim 6 recites in part “the buckling bracket, at the fastening hook end thereof”. However, a fastening hook end of the buckling bracket was not previously introduced. The only fastening hook end previously introduced was that of the hook. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites in part “the buckling bracket, at the fastening hook end thereof”. However, a fastening hook end of the buckling bracket was not previously introduced. The only fastening hook end previously introduced was that of the hook. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites “the buckling bracket, at the fastening hook end”, However, a fastening hook end of the buckling bracket was not previously introduced. The only fastening hook end previously introduced was that of the hook. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20190241033 A1 ("Takahashi").
Claim 1: Takahashi teaches a tow hook device for a motor vehicle, the tow hook device comprising: a base plate (24); a U-shaped hook (30) having a free hook end (32) and a fastening hook end (31) opposing the free hook end, the hook being fastened to the base plate at the fastening hook end (via 41c; Figs. 2-4) such that, in an installation position, orients the hook obliquely to the base plate in a vertical direction so that in a side view a connecting line between the free hook end and the fastening hook end forms a first angle which is not 90 degrees to the base plate (angle 1; para. 58, lines 4-10; Annotated Fig. 4 below); and a buckling bracket (42) which connects the free hook end to the base plate such that, in the side view, forms a second angle to the base plate that is closer to 90 degrees than the first angle (angle 2; para. 59, lines 5-11 and para. 60, lines 9-1; Annotated Fig. 4) so that the base plate, the hook, and the buckling bracket form a triangle in the side view (Fig. 4), the buckling bracket being formed of a deformable material to enable deformation of the buckling bracket in response to receipt of a predefined pressure from the free hook end (para. 59, lines 1-11 and para. 55, lines 5-7).
PNG
media_image1.png
608
437
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4
Claim 2: Takahashi teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Takahashi further teaches the tow hook device, wherein the first angle (angle 1) and the second angle (angle 2) are greater than 90 degrees (Annotated Fig. 4) so that, in the installation position, the hook (30) and the buckling bracket (42) are directed downwardly away from the base plate (24).
Claim 3: Takahashi teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Takahashi further teaches the tow hook device, wherein the first angle (angle b1) and the second angle (angle b2) are less than 90 degrees (para. 37, lines 10-12; Annotated Fig. 6 below) so that, in the installation position, the hook (30) and the buckling bracket (42) are directed upwardly away from the base plate (24).
PNG
media_image2.png
625
501
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 6
Claim 4: Takahashi teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Takahashi further teaches the tow hook device, wherein: the first angle (angle c1) is in a range greater than 90 degrees (Annotated Fig. 8 below; para. 38, lines 5-8), and/or the second angle (angle c2) is in a range greater than 90 degrees (Annotated Fig. 8). But does not specifically teach the tow hook device, wherein: the first angle is in a range between 120 degrees and 160 degrees, and/or the second angle is in a range between 95 degrees and 120 degrees.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Takahashi with the given ranges of angles. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The tow hook device of Takahashi would still work for its intended purpose with the given ranges as Annotated Fig. 8 shows the general range of the angles being greater than 90 degrees.
PNG
media_image3.png
842
726
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 8
Claim 5: Takahashi teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Takahashi further teaches the tow hook device, wherein: a hook end portion at the free hook end (32) of the hook (30) has a U-shape (Fig. 2), the hook end portion, in the side view, is oriented normal to the base plate, and/or the hook end portion, in the side view, is oriented horizontally in the installation position (Fig. 4).
Claim 6: Takahashi teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Takahashi further teaches the tow hook device, wherein on the base plate (24): the hook (30), at the fastening hook end (31) thereof, has a fastening hook end portion which is oriented parallel to the base plate and contacts the base plate (Figs. 2 and 4), and/or the buckling bracket, at the fastening hook end thereof, has a fastening hook end portion which is oriented parallel to the base plate and contacts the base plate (Figs. 2 and 4).
Claim 7: Takahashi teaches a motor vehicle, comprising: a body component (102a); a frame component (20); and a tow hook device that includes: a base plate (24) fastened to the body component and the frame component (Figs. 1 and 2); a U-shaped hook (30) having a free hook end (32) and a fastening hook end (31) opposing the free hook end, the hook being fastened to the base plate at the fastening hook end (via 41c; Figs. 2-4) such that, in an installation position, orients the hook obliquely to the base plate in a vertical direction so that in a side view a connecting line between the free hook end and the fastening hook end forms a first angle which is not 90 degrees to the base plate (angle 1; para. 58, lines 4-10; Annotated Fig. 4); and a buckling bracket (42) which connects the free hook end to the base plate such that, in the side view, forms a second angle to the base plate that is closer to 90 degrees than the first angle (angle 2; para. 59, lines 5-11 and para. 60, lines 9-1; Annotated Fig. 4) so that the base plate, the hook, and the buckling bracket form a triangle in the side view (Fig. 4), the buckling bracket being formed of a deformable material to enable deformation of the buckling bracket in response to receipt of a predefined pressure from the free hook end (para. 59, lines 1-11 and para. 55, lines 5-7).
Claim 8: Takahashi teaches the limitations of claim 7 as noted above. Takahashi further teaches the motor vehicle, wherein the base plate (24) is oriented normal to a carriageway of the motor vehicle (Figs 1 and 4).
Claim 9: Takahashi teaches the limitations of claim 7 as noted above. Takahashi further teaches the motor vehicle, wherein the first angle (angle 1) and the second angle (angle 2) are greater than 90 degrees (Annotated Fig. 4) so that, in the installation position, the hook (30) and the buckling bracket (42) are directed downwardly away from the base plate (24).
Claim 10: Takahashi teaches the limitations of claim 7 as noted above. Takahashi further teaches the motor vehicle, wherein the first angle (angle b1) and the second angle (angle b2) are less than 90 degrees (para. 37, lines 10-12; Annotated Fig. 6) so that, in the installation position, the hook (30) and the buckling bracket (42) are directed upwardly away from the base plate (24).
Claim 11: Takahashi teaches the limitations of claim 7 as noted above. Takahashi further teaches the motor vehicle, wherein: the first angle (angle c1) is in a range greater than 90 degrees (Annotated Fig. 8; para. 38, lines 5-8), and/or the second angle (angle c2) is in a range greater than 90 degrees (Annotated Fig. 8). But does not specifically teach the tow hook device, wherein: the first angle is in a range between 120 degrees and 160 degrees, and/or the second angle is in a range between 95 degrees and 120 degrees.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Takahashi with the given ranges of angles. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The tow hook device of Takahashi would still work for its intended purpose with the given ranges as Annotated Fig. 8 shows the general range of the angles being greater than 90 degrees.
Claim 12: Takahashi teaches the limitations of claim 7 as noted above. Takahashi further teaches the motor vehicle, wherein: a hook end portion at the free hook end (32) of the hook (30) has a U-shape (Fig. 2), the hook end portion, in the side view, is oriented normal to the base plate, and/or the hook end portion, in the side view, is oriented horizontally in the installation position (Fig. 4).
Claim 13: Takahashi teaches the limitations of claim 7 as noted above. Takahashi further teaches the motor vehicle, wherein on the base plate (24): the hook (30), at the fastening hook end (31) thereof, has a fastening hook end portion which is oriented parallel to the base plate and contacts the base plate (Figs. 2 and 4), and/or the buckling bracket, at the fastening hook end thereof, has a fastening hook end portion which is oriented parallel to the base plate and contacts the base plate (Figs. 2 and 4).
Claim 14: Takahashi teaches A tow hook device for a motor vehicle, the tow hook device comprising: a base plate; a hook (30) fastened to the base plate at a fastening hook end (31) which opposes a free hook end (32) such that, in an installation position, orients the hook obliquely to the base plate in a vertical direction so that a connecting line between the free hook end and the fastening hook end forms a first angle which is not 90 degrees to the base plate (angle 1; para. 58, lines 4-10; Annotated Fig. 4 below); and at least two buckling brackets (42 and 41), formed of a deformable material to enable deformation of the at least two buckling brackets in response to receipt of a predefined pressure from the free hook end (para. 59, lines 1-11 and para. 55, lines 5-7), to connect the free hook end to the base plate to form a second angle to the base plate that is less than the first angle so that the base plate, the hook, and the at least two buckling brackets form a triangle (para. 37, lines 10-12; Annotated Fig. 6).
Claim 15: Takahashi teaches the limitations of claim 14 as noted above. Takahashi further teaches the motor vehicle, wherein the first angle (angle 1) and the second angle (angle 2) are greater than 90 degrees (Annotated Fig. 4) so that, in the installation position, the hook (30) and the at least two buckling bracket (41, 42) are directed downwardly away from the base plate (24).
Claim 16: Takahashi teaches the limitations of claim 14 as noted above. Takahashi further teaches the motor vehicle, wherein the first angle (angle b1) and the second angle (angle b2) are less than 90 degrees (para. 37, lines 10-12; Annotated Fig. 6) so that, in the installation position, the hook (30) and the at least two buckling bracket (41, 42) are directed upwardly away from the base plate (24).
Claim 17: Takahashi teaches the limitations of claim 7 as noted above. Takahashi further teaches the motor vehicle, wherein: the first angle (angle c1) is in a range greater than 90 degrees (Annotated Fig. 8; para. 38, lines 5-8), and/or the second angle (angle c2) is in a range greater than 90 degrees (Annotated Fig. 8). But does not specifically teach the tow hook device, wherein: the first angle is in a range between 120 degrees and 160 degrees, and/or the second angle is in a range between 95 degrees and 120 degrees.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Takahashi with the given ranges of angles. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The tow hook device of Takahashi would still work for its intended purpose with the given ranges as Annotated Fig. 8 shows the general range of the angles being greater than 90 degrees.
Claim 18: Takahashi teaches the limitations of claim 14 as noted above. Takahashi further teaches the motor vehicle, wherein: a hook end portion at the free hook end (32) of the hook (30) has a U-shape (Fig. 2), the hook end portion, in the side view, is oriented normal to the base plate, and/or the hook end portion, in the side view, is oriented horizontally in the installation position (Fig. 4).
Claim 19: Takahashi teaches the limitations of claim 14 as noted above. Takahashi further teaches the motor vehicle, wherein on the base plate (24): the hook (30), at the fastening hook end (31) thereof, has a fastening hook end portion which is oriented parallel to the base plate and contacts the base plate (Figs. 2 and 4), and/or the at least two buckling brackets, at the fastening hook end thereof, has a fastening hook end portion which is oriented parallel to the base plate and contacts the base plate (Figs. 2 and 4).
Claim 20: Takahashi teaches the limitations of claim 14 as noted above. Takahashi further teaches the tow hook device, wherein: at least one buckling bracket of the at least two buckling brackets (41, 42) is to connect each leg of the free hook end (32) of the hook (30) to the base plate (24) (Figs. 2 and 3), and at least one buckling bracket of the at least two buckling brackets is formed geometrically to have at least one predetermined buckling point (43) (para. 60, lines 3-11) which facilitates deformation of the at least one buckling bracket in response to the predefined pressure from the free hook end of the hook (para. 59, lines 1-11).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AL-BIRR RAHMAN CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-4661. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am - 6:00pm.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at (571) 270-7778. 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.
/A.R.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614