Rocker Panel Restraint Clamp Kit, Aerodynamic Test Assembly Including Same, Methods of Using Same, and Method of Securing Different Vehicles During Aerodynamic Testing Detailed Action
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/26/2023 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “a post member” should be “a first post member”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: the two occurrences of the limitation “the post member” should be “the first post member”. 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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 17, the claim asserts both an apparatus and method steps of using the apparatus. A single claim that includes both an apparatus and a method of using the apparatus is indefinite. It is unclear if infringement would occur when the product is created as an apparatus or when the product instructions are used in the method. The examiner suggests rewriting the limitation in independent form and incorporating the functional steps of the method as configurations of the instructions.
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 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.
Claims 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballard (US 6185982; “Ballard”), in view of Serbes (US 20180207700; “Serbes”).
Regarding claim 12, Ballard discloses, in figures 1-7, a rocker panel (8) restraint clamp kit (not enumerated, see figure 4) for removably securing a vehicle (ABSTRACT, “An apparatus for securing a vehicle to a vehicle repair system”) to a test bed of a wind tunnel (the examiner believes this preamble recitation does not further limit the recited structure in the body of the claim, see MPEP 2111.02), comprising: a first clamp ((32, 68, 72, 78, 80, 82, 84) see fig. 1’s front and back securing means) including, a first base (32, 68) having a first length along a longitudinal axis (col. 6, lines 4-7, examiner notes Ballard’s clamp column height adjustment holes allow the clamp support to be fixed at selected heights) of the first clamp (32, 68, 72, 78, 80, 82, 84); a first jaw (82) connected to the first base (32, 68); a third jaw (84) movably mounted (see fig. 4, examiner notes Ballard’s clamp bolt and nut fix the second clamp member to the first clamp member) onto the first fixed jaw (82); and a first drive member (78) connected to the first jaw and the third jaw (84) and configured to displace (col. 5, lines 8-52, examiner notes as Ballard’s clamp bolt is tightened, the clamp members move toward each other securing a vehicle pinch weld, and when the clamp bolt is loosened, springs push the clamp members away from each other) the first jaw (82) toward and away from the third jaw (84); and a second clamp ((32, 68, 72, 78, 80, 82, 84) see fig. 1’s front and back securing means) including, a second base (32, 68) having a second length along a longitudinal axis (col. 6, lines 4-7, examiner notes Ballard’s clamp column height adjustment holes allow the clamp support to be fixed at selected heights) of the second clamp (32, 68, 72, 78, 80, 82, 84) that is greater than the first length (examiner notes Ballard’s securing means have independent height adjustment); a second jaw (82) connected to the second base (32, 68); a fourth jaw (84) movably mounted (see fig. 4, examiner notes Ballard’s clamp bolt and nut fix the second clamp member to the first clamp member) onto the second jaw (82); and a second drive member (78, 80) connected to the second jaw (82) and the fourth jaw (84) and configured to displace (col. 5, lines 8-52, examiner notes as Ballard’s clamp bolt is tightened, the clamp members move toward each other securing a vehicle pinch weld, and when the clamp bolt is loosened, springs push the clamp members away from each other) the second jaw (82) toward and away from the fourth jaw (84).
Ballard fails to disclose a fixed jaw connected to the base and a movable jaw movably mounted onto the first fixed jaw.
Serbes teaches, in figures 2-3, fixed jaw (14) connected to the base (10) and a movable jaw (16) movably mounted (¶ 0074, examiner notes Serbes’ C-shaped jaw is mounted to the first jaw with nuts and bolts) onto the fixed jaw (14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Serbes’ jaw arrangement scheme of a fixed jaw and a movable jaw to teach Ballard to modify the clamp member arrangement so that the clamp wall becomes the clamp member opposing a moveable clamp member to simplify the clamp design by eliminating one of the original movable clamp members. Doing so would reduce the manufacturing cost of the assembly.
Regarding claim 17, Ballard and Serbes discloses, in Ballard’s figures 1-7, providing a first vehicle (5) having a first rocker panel height (not enumerated, see fig. 1); clamping the first clamp (32, 68, 72, 78, 80, 82, 84) to a rocker panel flange of the first vehicle (col. 5, lines 12-13, Ballard’s vehicle retainer engages the pinch weld of the vehicle); removing the first clamp (32, 68, 72, 78, 80, 82, 84) from the first vehicle (5); providing a second vehicle (col. 5, lines 8-11, examiner notes Ballard’s system is used on multiple types of vehicles such as trucks and sport vehicles) having a second rocker panel height that is different from the first rocker panel height (see previous comment, the examiner notes a truck could have a different height than a sport vehicle); and clamping the second clamp (32, 68, 72, 78, 80, 82, 84) to a rocker panel flange of the second vehicle (col. 5, lines 12-13, Ballard’s vehicle retainer engages the pinch weld of the vehicle).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballard (US 6185982; “Ballard”) and Serbes (US 20180207700; “Serbes”), as applied to claim 12, in further view of Takahashi (US 20160313214; “Takahashi”).
Regarding claim 16, Ballard and Serbes fail to disclose a load cell.
Takahashi teaches, in figure 4, a load cell (29) configured to provide sensor data (¶ 0071, Takahashi’s force sensor senses restraining force) during a test session of the vehicle (1); and a restraint post (10) connected to (see fig. 4) the load cell (29) and one of the first clamp (33) and the second clamp (33), and the first clamp (33) is in one of the first configuration and the second configuration (¶ 0055, examiner notes each restraining jig has a length adjusting mechanism, therefore the shaft supporting arms can be connected to retraining jigs of variable length) when the restraint post (10) is connected the first clamp (33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Takahashi’s force sensor arrangement scheme into Ballard and Serbes securing assembly to securely sense the restraining force of the restraining vehicle. Doing so makes it possible to measure, analyze and evaluate the vehicle sprung characteristics.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballard (US 6185982; “Ballard”) and Serbes (US 20180207700; “Serbes”), as applied to claim 12, in further view of Espinosa (US 7549313; “Espinosa”).
Regarding claim 18, Ballard and Serbes fail to disclose jaws pivotally connected to a base.
Espinosa teaches, in figures 10-11, first fixed jaw (320) is pivotally connected (col. 9, lines 7-14, Espinosa’s pinch weld clamp is pivotally connected to the sleeve via radially spaced holes through which a pin selects a rotation position) to the first base (306), and the second fixed jaw (320) is pivotally connected (see previous comment) to the second base (306).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Espinosa’s post pivot adjustment into Ballard and Serbes’ securing assembly for increased mounting flexibility. Doing so provides for securing vehicle with crooked pinch welds.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 and 19-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter
Regarding claim 1, although Ballard discloses an apparatus for securing a vehicle with a first clamp member and a second clamp member connected and tightened by a clamp bolt and a clamp nut, an upright column and clamp column connected via a hand knob; Ballard fails to disclose first, second and third fasteners where one configuration of the clamp is formed when the third fastener is directly connected to the clamp and a post and a second configuration of the clamp and an extension is formed when the first fastener is directly connect to the clamp and the second fastener is directly connected to the post. Furthermore, no other prior art can be found to motivate or teach applicant’s rocker panel restraint clamp kit including at least one extension including a first fastener and a second fastener; and a third fastener, wherein the clamp module is configured to form a first configuration clamp when the third fastener is directly connected to both of the clamp fastener and a fastener of a post member, and the clamp module and the extension are configured to form a second configuration clamp when the first fastener is directly connected to the clamp fastener and the second fastener is directly connected to the fastener of the post member; in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
The dependent claims are allowable for at least the same reasons as above.
Regarding claim 19, although Ballard discloses a method for securing a vehicle by configuring first clamp and second clamp members on an assembled upright column and clamp column at an adjusted height of a first vehicle rocker panel height and reconfiguring the clamp members at a second adjusted height of a second vehicle rocker panel height by adjusting the position of the clamp column within the upright column; Ballard fails to disclose configuration heights of the clamp formed when an extension is or is not directly connected to the clamp and the post. Furthermore, no other prior art can be found to motivate or teach applicant’s method including creating a second configuration of the adjustable rocker panel restraint clamp by connecting a first extension to the clamp module and connecting the first post member to the first extension such that the adjustable rocker panel restraint clamp has a second clamp height that falls within the predetermined range of clamp heights relative to the test bed surface; in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Dependent claim 20 is allowable for at least the same reasons as above.
Claims 13-15 are 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.
Regarding claim 13, the examiner notes a search has not revealed prior art teaching or suggesting to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ballard and Serbes, as combined in the rejection of claim 12, to include a first mounting member pivotally connected to the first base; and a module fastener, wherein the first mounting member includes a clamp fastener, the first base and the first mounting member are configured to form a first configuration of the first clamp when the module fastener is directly connected to both of the clamp fastener and a fastener of a first post member. Examiner concludes prior existence of the combination, or a suggestion to combine all cited references, is improbable.
Dependent claim 14 would be allowable for at least the same reasons as above.
Regarding claim 15, the examiner notes a search has not revealed prior art teaching or suggesting to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ballard and Serbes, as combined in the rejection of claim 12, to include an extension including a first fastener and a second fastener, the first fastener is configured to connect the extension to the first base, and the second fastener is configured to connect the extension to a first post member, wherein the first mounting member includes a clamp fastener, the first base, the first mounting member, and the extension are configured to form a second configuration of the first clamp when the first fastener is directly connected to the clamp fastener and the second fastener is directly connected to a fastener of the first post member. Examiner concludes prior existence of the combination, or a suggestion to combine all cited references, is improbable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Clausen (US 4337636) discloses a vehicle securing device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY P GRAVES whose telephone number is (469)295-9072. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/TIMOTHY P GRAVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855