DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/24/2026 has been entered.
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(s) 1-8 and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 10,493,824 to McWhorter in view of US Patent 9,643,675 to Boutin and US Patent 6,409,367 to Pratt.
Regarding claim 1, McWhorter discloses a clamping assembly (Figs. 1-2), comprising: a clamping component (140) configured for selective attachment to a member of a vehicle (120); a separate toolless fastener (130) configured to selectively fasten an accessory to the clamping component (Col. 3, lines 19-21), the clamping component and the accessory being configured to cooperate with the separate toolless fastener such that: when the separate toolless fastener engages the clamping component and the accessory, and is actuated to a locked position from an unlocked position (i.e. pins are inserted into detent (Col. 4, lines 28-34)), the separate toolless fastener selectively fastens the accessory to the clamping component (Figs. 1-2). To the extent it is not clear that the pins are inserted and withdrawn without the use of tools, Boutin discloses a toolless fastener for securing an object to a vehicle (Figs. 1-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used Boutin’s toolless fastener to secure the clamping component to the accessory in McWhorter because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent fastener for another to obtain predictable results. In the combination, the plate (300 – Boutin) would be adjacent the inside surface of the windshield and would be pivotably connected to 146 in McWhorter), and the locking element (150 – Boutin) would clamp against the outer surface of the windshield. The combination fails to disclose the separate toolless fastener being separate and physically distinct from the clamping component. However, Pratt discloses that removable pivot pins are known in this art (Col. 5, lines 21-24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used removable pivot pins in the combination because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent pivoting element for another to obtain predictable results. Further, the modification would allow for separate replacement, cleaning and storage of the toolless fastener and clamping component as desired. The combination discloses the separate toolless fastener being separate and physically distinct from the clamping component (via removal of the pivot pin(s)).
Regarding claim 2, the combination from claim 1 discloses a housing (110 – Boutin); an actuator (130 – Boutin) pivotably connected to the housing and configured to move between an open position and a close position; a locking element (150 – Boutin) pivotably connected to the housing and configured to move between the unlocked position (Boutin Fig. 3) and the locked position (Boutin Fig. 2); the actuator and the locking element being configured to cooperate such that: when the actuator is moved from the open position to the close position, the locking element moves from the unlocked position to the locked position (Boutin Figs. 2-4).
Regarding claim 3, the combination from claim 2 discloses wherein the separate toolless fastener is a separate quick-action fastener (Boutin – fastener is capable of quick action).
Regarding claim 4, the combination from claim 2 discloses wherein the separate toolless fastener is a separate single-handed operable fastener (Boutin – fastener is capable of single-handed operation).
Regarding claim 5, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein the clamping component includes: a clamping portion (142 - McWhorter) configured to selectively clamp onto the member; and an attachment portion (146 in McWhorter Fig. 2, plus 300 in Boutin) extending from the clamping portion and configured to cooperate with the separate toolless fastener (300 (Boutin) engages the toolless fastener).
Regarding claim 6, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein the clamping portion is a resilient clamping portion configured for a snap-fit connection with the member (McWhorter Col. 3, lines 42-47).
Regarding claim 7, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein the attachment portion defines a lip (146 – McWhorter Fig. 2) for spacing the member from the accessory when the member is selectively fastened to the accessory (McWhorter Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein the attachment portion defines an aperture configured to receive the separate toolless fastener (Boutin Fig. 2 – 300 defines an aperture receiving the toolless fastener).
Regarding claim 14, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein the clamping component defines a first aperture (aperture in 300 – Boutin) and the accessory defines a second aperture (hole in windshield – McWhorter Figs. 1-2), such that: when the locking element is received by the first aperture and the second aperture, and is in the locked position, the accessory is selectively fastened to the clamping component in a stacked configuration between the housing and the locking element (Boutin Fig. 2 – the windshield would be between 110 and 150).
Regarding claim 15, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein when the member is selectively fastened to the accessory, the actuator and the housing are located in an interior space of the vehicle (the actuator (130 – Boutin) and housing (110 – Boudin) are on the inside of the windshield – see claim 1 rejection), and the locking element is located in one of: the interior space of the vehicle, and outside the interior space of the vehicle (the locking element (150 – Boutin) is on the outside of the windshield).
Regarding claim 16, the combination from claim 1 discloses a kit for a clamp assembly (the claimed elements together can be considered a kit, especially during assembly), comprising: a clamping component (140 – McWhorter) configured for selective attachment to a member of a vehicle; a separate toolless fastener (Fig. 3 – Boutin) configured to selectively fasten an accessory to the clamping component, the separate toolless fastener being separate and physically distinct from the clamping component (via removable pivot pin(s) – Pratt), the clamping component and the accessory being configured to cooperate with the separate toolless fastener such that: when the separate toolless fastener engages the clamping component and the accessory, and is actuated to a locked position from an unlocked position, the separate toolless fastener selectively fastens the accessory to the clamping component (McWhorten Figs. 1-2; Boutin Fig. 2 – fastener is in locked position).
Regarding claim 17, the combination from claim 1 discloses a second clamping component for selective attachment to the member of the vehicle (McWhorten Col. 1, ln 66 – Col. 2, ln. 5).
Regarding claim 18, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein the kit further comprises the accessory (110 – McWhorten).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to applicant’s argument that motivation is lacking for the McWhorter/Boutin combination (page 9), see the motivation provided in the rejection above. As to applicant’s argument that the combination involves impermissible hindsight (page 9), it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
As to applicant’s arguments that McWhorter and Boutin are different clamps that operate in different manners (page 9), it appears that the applicant is misunderstanding the combination to be wholly replacing all of the two part clamp (i.e. 130 and 140) in McWhorter with all of the clamp in Boutin. The modification is only using Boutin’s clamp to replace attachment portion 130 (McWhorter) and attach to the windshield 110 (McWhorter). Boutin’s clamp would be pivotably connected to clamp portion 140 (McWhorter), similar to how clamp portion 130 is pivotably connected to clamp portion 140 (McWhorter Fig. 1). Clamp portion 140 in McWhorter with the cam function noted by applicant is unaffected by the modification.
As to applicant’s argument that having the mounting portion 300 of Boutin adjacent to the inside surface of the windshield is unsound (page 10), the statement noted by applicant is describing the orientation of the clamp after the modification. Boutin discloses its clamp as securing two elements together (200 and 300). When implemented into McWhorter, the clamp is used to secure two elements together (Boutin 300 and McWhorter 110). The clamp can either be oriented with the mounting portion (Boutin – 300) and actuator (Boutin – 130) on the inside or outside of the windshield. In the combination, the mounting portion and actuator would be on the inside of the windshield and the mounting portion (300 – Boutin) would be pivotably connected to 146 in McWhorter.
As to applicant’s argument that it is not clear how cam portion 146 (McWhorter) would be used because the actuator (130 – Boutin) is on the same side (page 10), as noted above, Boutin’s clamp is only replacing clamp portion 130 in McWhorter. The actuator (130 – Boutin) and mounting portion 300 (Boutin) are on the inside of the windshield, and the mounting portion (300 – Boutin) pivotably connects to 146 (McWhorter).
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT T MCNURLEN whose telephone number is (313)446-4898. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at 571-272-4544. 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.
/SCOTT T MCNURLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights