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 .
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) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 4,195,738 to O’Neal in view of US 4,278,175 to Jackson.
Regarding claim 1, O’Neal discloses a carriage, comprising: a base 10 or 11, 12; one or more wheels (col. 2, lines 37-50) coupled to the base; a first support block structure 27 supported at least partially by the base; a first bar structure 16 extending relative to the base; an angled bar 18, 19 extending at least partially between the first bar structure and the base; and a second support block structure 46 (fig. 5) supported at least partially by the angled bar.
Regarding claim 11, O’Neal further discloses a second bar structure 30 extending relative to the base; a third bar structure 31 extending relative to the base and spaced from the second bar structure across at least part of the base; and a crossbar 41 configured for removable coupling to at least one of the second bar structure or the third bar structure (col. 5, lines 9-32).
O’Neal does not show the first support block structure to comprise a retention opening.
Jackson discloses a carriage comprising a support block structure 30 comprising a retention opening 32 with cushion 34 that holds the bottom of the glass securely in place. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first support block structure such that it comprised a retention opening in view of the teachings of Jackson so as to secure the bottom of the glass and prevent movement.
Regarding claim 2, the central portion of the trailer includes an “A” frame made up of the angled bars 18 and 19 extending downwardly. Being an “A” frame, the angled bars are oriented at an oblique angle relative to the base. Nevertheless, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the angled bars such that they were oriented at an oblique angle relative to the base to ensure that the glass sits properly in the frame and the glass does not fall backwards.
Regarding claim 3 and the angles, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the oblique angle less than 90 degrees and greater than 45 degrees to further ensure proper seating, and since it has been held that discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 4, O’Neal shows a crossbar 41 that is shown to be parallel with the first bar structure 16 but does not specifically disclose them to be parallel. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the bars such that they were parallel so as to have an overall sound structure that operates properly.
Regarding claim 5, O’Neal shows an adjustable block structure 46, 47 coupled to the crossbar and operable to abut against a vehicle windshield to restrain movement of the vehicle windshield when the vehicle windshield is supported at least partially by the first support block structure and the second support block structure.
Regarding claim 6, O’Neal shows a second bar structure 30 extending relative to the base; and a third bar structure 31 extending relative to the base and spaced from the second bar structure across at least part of the base.
Regarding claim 7 the crossbar 41 is removably coupled to at least one of the second bar structure or the third bar structure (col. 5, lines 9-32).
Regarding claim 8, the first support block structure and the angled bar are positioned between the second bar structure and the third bar structure.
Regarding claim 9, O’Neal discloses a set of brackets 34, 42 extending outwardly relative to the base.
Regarding claims 10 and 16, at least part of the first support block structure 27 (modified with Jackson) and at least part of the second support block structure 46 (resilient inner face 47) have a lower hardness than the base. Nevertheless, being that the base is part of the vehicle frame, and the support block structures support the glass, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the arrangement such that the support block structures had a lower hardness than the base so as to cushion and support the glass and prevent it from breaking.
Regarding claim 12, O’Neal shows an adjustable block structure 46 coupled to the crossbar.
Regarding claim 13, the adjustable block structure comprises a guide channel 43 defining a track.
Regarding claim 14, O’Neal shows a knob 44, 45 extending at least partially through the guide channel of the adjustable block structure to lock and unlock the adjustable block structure.
Regarding claim 15, the adjustable block structure includes a plate 47 having an irregular shape.
Regarding claim 17, O’Neal shows an angled bar 18, 19 extending at least partially between the first bar structure 16 and the base; and a second support block structure 46 supported at least partially by the angled bar.
Regarding the method of claims 18-20, the combination of O’Neal and Jackson as discussed above meet the steps as claimed. Reference is made to col. 1, line 43 to col. 2, line 12; col. 5, lines 9-32; col 5, lines 51-58 of O’Neal.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL N DICKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7742. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30 - 4:00.
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.
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.
PAUL N. DICKSON
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3616
/PAUL N DICKSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614