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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “C” hooks described in [0010] is not shown in drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore,
the crisscross strings A is coated with a synthetic sponge material configured to expand upon contact with a fluid and fill the net voids, recited in claim 7,
the spring closure clasps recited in claim 12,
the alligator clamps recited in claim 13,
the "S" hooks recited in claim 14, and
the elastic bungee cords recited in claim 16 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 6 is 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.
Regarding claim 6: Claim 6 depend from the apparatus/system of claim 1. Examiner recognizes the claim limitation of “forming a net of a coarse mesh based on a folding over of the net” as a product-by-process claim. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) see MPEP 2113.
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.
(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 1-5, 11, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hartigan (U.S. 5,529,341).
Regarding claim 1, Hartigan discloses a vehicle net (10, see figs. 1-2; col. 2, line 11 “passenger vehicle”; col. 2, line 51: “net 10”) comprising:
a plurality of longitudinal and latitudinal crisscross strings (12; see fig. 2 and col. 2, line 2) configured to form a net (10) comprising a plurality of terminating corners (corners of 12 terminating along frame 16) and net voids (14);
a plurality of extension strings (30, 32; see figs. 1-2) each disposed at one of the plurality of terminating corners (as shown in fig. 2) on a first end (as shown in figs. 1-2) and each comprising a second end (34); and
a plurality of attachments (36) each disposed at the second end (34) of one of the plurality of extension strings (30, 32).
Regarding claim 2, Hartigan discloses a border string (16a, 16b, 16c, 16d) running a complete loop adjoining the plurality of terminating corners (as shown in fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Hartigan discloses wherein the plurality of crisscross strings (12) run angularly to the border string (as shown in fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Hartigan discloses wherein the plurality of crisscross strings run parallel to the border string.
PNG
media_image1.png
553
716
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Hartigan discloses additional extension strings (20, 22, figs. 1-2) and additional attachments (26) disposed intermediate to the plurality of terminating corners (as shown in fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Hartigan discloses wherein the plurality of attachments (36) include "J" hooks bent backward at an angle (see fig. 4: hook 36 is in the form of “J” and is bent backward).
Regarding claim 14, Hartigan wherein the plurality of attachments (36) include "S" hooks (as shown in fig. 5, the shape of 36 defines a “S-shape).
Regarding claim 15, Hartigan discloses wherein the plurality of attachments (36) include "U" hooks (as shown in fig. 4, the shape of 36 defines a “U-shape).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartigan (U.S. 5,529,341) in view of Kleinberg (U.S. 5,690,355).
Regarding claim 6, Hartigan teaches all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; however, Hartigan fails to teach that the crisscross strings form a net of a coarse mesh and form a net of a coarse mesh based on a folding over of the net.
Kleinberg teaches that making fabricating nets from coarse mesh provide extra strength to the net for holding/supporting materials (refer to col. 2, lines 53-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the net of Hartigan such that it is made up of coarse mech, as taught by Kleinberg, for the purpose of increasing the strength of the net for holding/supporting materials (refer to col. 2, lines 53-60).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartigan (U.S. 5,529,341) in view of Gandhi et al. (U.S. 2021/0046880A1).
Regarding claims 8-10, Hartigan teaches all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; however, Hartigan fails to teach that strings (i.e., the longitudinal and latitudinal strings) are made of elastic fibers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted one type of flexible string for another for the predictable result of producing the net used for storing/holding vehicle cargo.
Gandhi et al. generally teach that flexible strings can be made from elastic strings, elastic cords, bungee cords, or elastic fibers (refer to claim 9).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartigan (U.S. 5,529,341) in view of Cole et al. (U.S. 2002/0011505A1).
Regarding claim 12, Hartigan teaches all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; however, Hartigan fails to teach that the plurality of attachments include spring closure clasps.
Cole et al. generally teach a cargo retention system for vehicles (refer to abstract), wherein the cargo retention system includes an attachment feature, wherein the attachment feature includes a hook (48) comprising a spring closure clasps (51, see figs. 3-4 and refer to para 0031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted one type of attachment for another to achieve the predictable result of securing the net to the vehicle body.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartigan (U.S. 5,529,341) in view of Hyers (U.S. 2015/0167707A1).
Regarding claim 13, Hartigan teaches all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; however, Hartigan fails to teach that the plurality of attachments include alligator clamps.
Hyers generally teaches that attachment devices can include hooks, clamps, alligator clamps, and more (refer to para 0078).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted one type of attachment for another to achieve the predictable result of securing the net to the vehicle body.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartigan (U.S. 5,529,341) in view of Smith et al. (U.S. 2019/0283644A1).
Regarding claim 16, Hartigan teaches all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; however, Hartigan fails to teach that the extension strings comprise elastic bungee cords.
Smith et al. teach a vehicle storage pocket (144, fig. 3) made of net, wherein the net is constructed from a network of bungee cords or other similar materials (refer to para 0045).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted one type of net structure for another (i.e., the generic net of Hartigan with the bungee cord nets of Smith) for the predictable result of storing and holding vehicle cargo.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is 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.
Binder et al. (U.S. 12,351,955) teach an expandable mesh screen that expands when in contact with a fluid. However, fail to teach coating a string with synthetic sponge material.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sparks (U.S 6,648,410B2) and Toyota (U.S. 6,089,659).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YANICK A AKARAGWE whose telephone number is (469)295-9298. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7:30-5:30.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571) 272-5405. 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.
/YANICK A AKARAGWE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672