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
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.
The phrase “227519641 v3” within the abstract is undefined.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraph 0029, “transvers” seems to be a writing error for “transverse”.
Appropriate correction is required.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The limitation “outer bar surfaces” disclosed in claim 1, line 24, is not defined in the specification.
The limitation “at least 80% of the intermediate portion length” disclosed in claim 12, line 8, is not defined in the specification.
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: 48 (paragraph 0021), 74 (paragraph 0029). 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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 72 (Fig. 1), PA (Fig. 1), 24 (Fig. 2). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8-9, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 26, “the load” does not provide proper antecedent basis in the claims. For purposes of expediting examination, this language will be interpreted as “a load”.
In claim 1, line 27, “inhibite4d” seems to be a writing error for “inhibited”.
In claim 8, lines 1-2, the phrase would be clearer if reworded as “fixed lengths of 102 inches and wherein the predetermined adjustment range is 12 inches“ with stricken out and italicized words to provide additional clarity and consistent language as terms used in claims 14-16.
In claim 9, line 2, “the two, telescoping” seems to be directed to state “the two telescoping”.
In claim 20, line 6, “having smaller area then that” seems to be directed to state “having smaller area than that”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 11 is of improper dependent form as it does not contain a reference to a previous claim. For purposes of expediting examination, this claim will refer to claim 10.
Claim 16 is of improper dependent form as it does not contain a reference to a previous claim. For purposes of expediting examination, this claim will refer to claim 15.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-4, 9, 13, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cassidy CA 2170081 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Cassidy discloses:
A load securing apparatus (20; Fig. 1) for a truck cargo zone (10; page 5, lines 1-2), the cargo zone having opposing, longitudinally extending walls with respective inner, wall surfaces spaced from each other by a transverse distance (12/13/14; Fig. 5; page 5, lines 1-4), the apparatus comprising:
a plurality of load bars including first and second load bars (17; Fig. 5), the first and second load bars having opposite ends and intermediate portions located between respective ones of the opposite ends (page 3, lines 15-18);
wherein the first load bar has first mating portions (Fig. 1) and the second load bar has second mating portions (Fig. 7);
wherein the first mating portions are located at the intermediate portion of the first load bar (Fig. 5);
wherein the second mating portions are located at the opposite ends of the second load bar (Fig. 5);
wherein the first load bar has a length sufficient to span the transverse distance between the longitudinally extending walls of the cargo zone (page 8, lines 16-17);
wherein the opposite ends of the first load bar are removably mountable to respective ones of the longitudinally extending walls so as to span the transverse distance when mounted (Fig. 5; page 5, lines 6-10);
wherein one of the ends of the second load bar is connectable to the intermediate portion of the first load bar by respective ones of the mating portions to secure the first and second load bars relative to each other and form an interior angle relative to each other (Fig. 5; page 3, lines 18-20 and page 4, lines 1-2);
wherein the first and second load bars at least partially define a perimeter of a load carrying area, the load carrying area located within and smaller than the area defined by the cargo zone (Fig. 5; page 5, lines 18-20);
wherein the first and second load bars have inner and outer bar surfaces relative to the perimeter of the load carrying area (Fig. 5);
whereby when [a load] (41) is placed within the perimeter and adjacent to at least one of the inner bars, unintended movement of the load is [inhibited] in response to certain movement of the truck (Fig. 6; page 1, lines 6-9).
PNG
media_image1.png
492
664
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
470
667
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
330
416
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Cassidy discloses that the first and second mating portions are removably securable to each other (page 6, lines 2-5), whereby the first and second load bars are selectively deployable within the cargo zone (Figs. 4-6; page 9, lines 12-14).
Regarding claim 3, Cassidy discloses that the first mating portions of the intermediate portion of the first load bar comprise multiple, spaced mounting locations (Fig. 3; page 6, line 10); and
wherein the second mating portions of the second load bar are adapted to be selectively mounted at any one of the mounting locations (page 3, lines 15-18), whereby the perimeter of the load carrying area is adjustable (page 9, lines 12-16).
Regarding claim 4, Cassidy discloses the multiple, spaced mounting locations of the first mating portions comprise respective receiving apertures (O; Fig. 1), and wherein the second mating portions comprise a corresponding flange (19A; Fig. 7) at each of the opposite ends of the second load bar, the flange being selectively receivable in a selected one of the receiving apertures (Fig. 5; page 8, lines 9-12).
Regarding claim 9, Cassidy discloses the load bars of adjustable length comprise two portions telescopically received relative to each other, [the two telescoping] portions securable in at least two positions (18/19; Fig. 7; page 5, lines 10-13 and lines 15-18).
Regarding claim 13, Cassidy discloses a pair of the first load bars securable at spaced longitudinal locations on the longitudinal walls and extending across the transverse distance (Fig. 5);
wherein the pair of the first load bars are securable to orient the first mating portions in opposing relationship relative to each other (Fig. 5; page 8, lines 9-10);
wherein the second mating portions at the opposite ends of the second load bar are mateable with corresponding ones of the first mating portions of the pair of the first load bars (Fig. 5);
whereby the second load bar and at least a portion of at least one of the first load bars define the load carrying area (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 18, Cassidy discloses that the interior angle ranges between 80° and 100° (page 3, lines 18-20 and page 4, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 19, Cassidy discloses that the interior angle is 90°, whereby the first and second load bars are orthogonal to each other (page 3, lines 18-20 and page 4, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 20, Cassidy discloses:
A method of inhibiting unintended movement of a load within a truck cargo zone (claim 6), the method comprising:
deploying a plurality of load bars by securing a first load bar transversely across the truck cargo zone (page 8, lines 16-17);
removably connecting a second load bar to the first load bar at an intermediate location thereof (page 3, lines 18-20 and page 4, lines 1-2) to define a load carrying area having smaller area [than] that of the truck cargo zone (Fig. 5; page 5, lines 18-20);
positioning the load adjacent to at least one of the first and second load bars whereby unintended movement of the load is inhibited (Fig. 6; page 1, lines 6-9).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cassidy CA 2170081 A1, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Embleton et al. US 20180126896 A1.
Regarding claim 5, Cassidy discloses at least one mounting shoe (Cassidy 21; Cassidy Fig. 1), the mounting shoe having first shoe portions (Cassidy 29/30/31/32; Cassidy Fig. 1) defining the receiving apertures therein (Cassidy page 6, lines 16-20) and second shoe portions (Cassidy 21; Cassidy Fig. 1) adjustable at multiple, spaced locations to the first load bar (Cassidy page 6, lines 5-9). Cassidy does not disclose that the second shoe portions are securable at multiple, spaced locations to the first load bar.
Regarding claim 6, Cassidy discloses transversely mountable cargo zone members with opposite cargo zone member ends and an intermediate cargo zone member portion between the cargo member zone ends (Cassidy Fig. 5). Cassidy does not disclose the apparatus having the mounting shoe configured to be securable to the intermediate cargo zone member portion to form the first load bar of the load securing apparatus thereby.
The applicant seems to define adjustably securable shoe portions “such as fasteners” (paragraph 0027, lines 9-10).
However, Embleton et al. disclose a clamping mechanism containing apertures (Embleton et al. 120) that fastens adjustably and securely to a load bar (Embleton et al. 114) (Embleton et al. Fig. 4; Embleton et al. paragraph 0040).
Therefore, it 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 to provide the mounting shoe of Cassidy with both adjustable and securable features as taught by Embleton et al. with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage of additional dependability in the mounting shoe to remain in a predetermined location on the first load bar.
Claims 7-8 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cassidy CA 2170081 A1, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Scott US 20060051178 A1.
Regarding claim 7, Cassidy discloses load bars of respective lengths (Cassidy Fig. 5). Cassidy does not disclose that at least some of the load bars are adapted to adjust the respective lengths within a predetermined adjustment range to form a set of adjustable-length load bars.
Regarding claim 8, Cassidy does not disclose that the adjustable-length load bars have fixed lengths of 102 [inches] and wherein the predetermined adjustment range is 12 [inches].
Regarding claim 14, Cassidy discloses the apparatus being used within a standard truck (Cassidy page 1, lines 4-6). Cassidy does not disclose that the first load bar has a length of 102 inches to span the transverse distance of the cargo zone.
Regarding claim 15, Cassidy does not disclose the second load bar has a length ranging between 48 inches and 96 inches to correspond to the truck cargo zone of a box type trailer.
Regarding claim 16, Cassidy does not disclose that a plurality of the second load bars of varying lengths selected from the group consisting of 48 inches, 60 inches, 72 inches, and 84 and 96 inches to form a kit of the second load bars selectively deployable with the first load bar to form different areas of the load carrying area.
However, Scott discloses load bars that are collapsible and extendable in predetermined lengths between a shortened length of about four feet and an extended length of about nine feet (Scott Fig. 1D; Scott paragraph 0006). Scott discloses that a plurality of load bars can be secured to the side walls and between other load bars for securing segmented cargo loads in both transverse and longitudinal directions relative to the cargo zone (Scott claim 2).
Therefore, it 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 to provide the load bars of respective lengths within the cargo zone of a standard truck of Cassidy with the adjustability of load bar lengths, including predetermined varying lengths as taught by Scott with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage of enabling storage of assorted load types that are typical for carrying in a box type trailer (Scott paragraph 0013).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cassidy CA 2170081 A1, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Williams, Jr. US 4797043 A.
Regarding claim 10, Cassidy discloses a second load bar that defines a perimeter of a load carrying area (Fig. 5). Cassidy does not disclose at least one support member removably attachable to the second load bar and extending therefrom in a plane to define a planar support area to inhibit movement of the load in response to the certain movement of the truck when the load is placed within the perimeter of the load carrying area.
However, Williams, Jr. discloses a plurality of cargo restraining support members as described by the applicant, comprising at least one support member (Williams, Jr. 42) removably attachable to the second load bar (Williams, Jr. 26) and extending therefrom in a plane to define a planar support area to inhibit movement of the load in response to the certain movement of the truck when the load is placed within the perimeter of the load carrying area (Williams, Jr. Fig. 1; Williams, Jr. col. 3, lines 27-37 and col. 4, lines 1-3).
Therefore, it 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 to provide the second load bar of Cassidy with at least one support member that can be removably attached to inhibit movement of the load in response to the certain movement of the truck as taught by Williams, Jr. with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage of restraining different types of cargo loads (Williams, Jr. col. 4, lines 7-9).
Regarding claim 11, Cassidy discloses that the second load bar has a longitudinal axis and is oriented horizontally within the truck cargo zone (Cassidy Fig. 5). Cassidy does not disclose that the support member includes a pair of support elements and the support elements extending vertically and radially outwardly from opposite sides of the longitudinal axis of the second load bar.
However, Williams, Jr. discloses that the support member includes a pair of support elements (Williams, Jr. 42) and the support elements extending vertically and radially outwardly from opposite sides of the longitudinal axis of the second load bar (Williams, Jr. Fig. 1).
Therefore, it 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 to provide the second load bar of Cassidy with a support member that includes a pair of support elements that extending vertically and radially outwardly from opposite sides of the longitudinal axis as taught by Williams, Jr. with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage of increasing the effective surface area of the second load beam and permit it to act over a larger planar support area (Williams, Jr. col. 4, lines 3-6).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cassidy CA 2170081 A1, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Robertson US 3051099 A.
Regarding claim 12, Cassidy discloses that the first load bar comprises a connector at each of the opposite ends to removably connect the first load bar across the transverse distance (Cassidy Fig. 5; Cassidy page 5, lines 6-10);
wherein the intermediate portion of the first load bar extends between the first load bar and the opposite ends of adjacent respective ones of the connectors and thereby has a length corresponding to the transverse distance (Cassidy Fig. 6; Cassidy page 3, lines 15-18 and page 8, lines 15-17). Cassidy discloses the mounting portions to be tubular body members that fit slidably over the first load bar (Cassidy 21; Cassidy Fig. 1; Cassidy page 6, lines 5-9). Cassidy does not disclose that the wherein the mounting locations on the first load bar extend at spaced locations over at least 80% of the intermediate portion length.
However, Robertson discloses a transverse load bar (Robertson 80) with spaced mounting locations (circled in annotated Fig. 1 below) formed therein over at least 80% of the intermediate portion length thereof (Robertson Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image4.png
746
858
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it 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 to provide the first load bar of Cassidy with spaced mounting locations formed therein over at least 80% of the intermediate portion length thereof as taught by Robertson with a reasonable expectation of success as opposed to using separate slidable tubular members for the mounting locations with the benefit of having a plurality of spaced mounting locations in a single piece, namely the first load bar, without needing separate elements to provide the locations.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cassidy CA 2170081 A1, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Heng et al. US 20090317205 A1.
Regarding claim 17, Cassidy discloses that at least one of the longitudinally extending walls of the truck cargo zone has an E-track mounted thereon (Cassidy 15; Cassidy Fig. 5), and the apparatus further comprising a connector formed at least one of the opposite ends of the first load bar to allow the first load bar to connect to the E-track (Fig. 5; page 5, lines 6-10). Cassidy does not disclose that the E-tracks extend longitudinally along the wall.
However, Heng et al. disclose tracks extending longitudinally along the wall (Heng et al. Fig. 7).
PNG
media_image5.png
686
783
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it 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 to provide the E-tracks of Cassidy to be longitudinally extending along the sidewalls of the trailer as taught by Heng et al. with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage of securing loads from tipping forward or rearward because of the close frequency of apertures in each track (Heng et al. paragraph 0010).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cassidy CA 2170081 A1 discloses a load anchor for cargo beams. See Cassidy Figs. 1, 5, 7.
Embleton et al. US 20180126896 A1 discloses a structure and method for securing and transporting equipment racks.
Scott US 20060051178 A1 discloses cargo stabilizing structures.
Williams, Jr. US 4797043 A discloses a load shoring beam for cargo trucks.
Robertson US 3051099 A discloses loader beam assemblies for freight cars, trucks, and the like. See Robertson Fig. 1.
Heng et al. US 20090317205 A1 disclose a decking beam support bracket. See Heng et al. Fig. 7.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anayansi Santiago whose telephone number is (571) 272-3138. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at (571) 270-5500. 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.
/Anayansi Santiago/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612