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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Comments
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 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.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element T should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-17, drawn to a subcombination, classified in 070/237;
II. Claims 18-20, drawn to a combination, classified in 296/70.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions II and I are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because the combination fails to include the specifics of the lock, accessory mount, the electrical connectors, or the latch assembly. The subcombination has separate utility such as a mounting rail not for use with an instrument panel.
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
--the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
--the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and/or
--the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Cassandra Oluyedun on 2/6/26 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of invention I, claims 1-17. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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: 82 ([0056]). 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 lock movable relative to the lock housing of claims 1 and 11; the unlocked state where the lock is spaced apart from the opening of the first channel of claims 1 and 11; the opening of claims 1 and 11; and the lock recessed from the outer surface of the lock housing of claims 2 and 14 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.
Claims 1-10 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “A mounting rail” (line 1) but then later recites within the body of the claim “a lock” which is awkward and confusing as the lock (42) is not disclosed in the specification as being a component or a part of the rail itself. Specifically, the lock sits next to the rail ([0043]) and is disposed “adjacent to” the mounting rail (24) but is not a feature of the rail itself. Perhaps applicant intended to recites “A mounting rail system” instead where the mounting rail system comprises the mounting rail as recited and the lock as recited. Further explanation is requested.
In claim 1, there is an inconsistency between the language in the preamble which sets forth that the claim is directed to a subcombination and the recitation of a housing “attached to” the vehicle reciting a combination. The positive recitation “attached to” makes the scope of the claim indefinite and unclear. Applicant is required to clarify what subject matter the claim is intended to be drawn to, i.e., combination or subcombination, and to amend the language of the claim to be consistency with this intent. For the purpose of treating the claims based upon prior art, the claims have been treated as subcombination claims. To maintain the subcombination perhaps “attached to” should be “attachable to” instead. If applicant amends the claims to be directed to the combination, any indication of allowable subject matter will have to be reevaluated accordingly.
Claim 5 recites that the rail further comprises “a vehicle accessory” which is unclear and indefinite as the claim is directed to the subcombination (A mounting rail) and it is evident that a mounting rail would not also include limitations to the accessory and accessory mount. If applicant intends this claim to be directed to a combination, this should be made clear in the next response. For the purposes of examination on the merits, the claim will be examined as best understood.
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 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 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Bistline.
For claim 1, Bistline (2005/0076684) discloses a mounting rail (FIG.3a) for a vehicle (104), the mounting rail comprising:
a housing (300) attachable to the vehicle (104) and including a first portion and a second portion;
a first channel (into which an accessory item 102, FIG.1, can be placed) extending along the first portion of the housing between a first end and a second end, the first end defining an opening (generally covered with 316) to the first channel; and
a lock (306) located proximate to the opening to the first channel,
the lock disposed in a lock housing (306) and movable relative to the lock housing (306) between a locked state blocking entry into the opening of the first channel (by locking 316 to the structure 314) and an unlocked state spaced apart from the opening of the first channel (whereby the lock releases 316 from 314).
PNG
media_image1.png
463
488
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For claim 10, a vehicle (104) incorporating the mounting rail of Claim 1.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tiesler et al. in view of WO 670.
For claim 1, Tiesler et al. (6957839) disclose a mounting rail for a vehicle (18), the mounting rail comprising:
a housing (12) attachable to the vehicle and including a first portion and a second portion;
a first channel (24,26) extending along the first portion of the housing between a first end and a second end, the first end defining an opening to the first channel; and
a lock (40) located proximate to the opening (FIG.1) to the first channel,
the lock movable between a locked state (FIG.1) blocking entry into the opening of the first channel and an unlocked state (FIG.2) spaced apart from the opening of the first channel.
PNG
media_image2.png
250
516
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
448
633
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Tiesler et al. lack the specific lock as recited having a lock housing where the lock is movable relative the lock housing, a feature taught by WO 9960670 (WO 670) as seen with locking mechanism (68).
PNG
media_image4.png
295
523
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the end cap (40) of Tiesler et al. with a lock as taught by WO 670 in order to prevent removal or theft of an accessory within the channel.
For claim 10, a vehicle (18) is provided incorporating the mounting rail of Claim 1.
Claims 1-2, 5-14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 832 in view of WO 670.
For claim 1, EP 3738832 (EP 832) discloses a mounting rail for a vehicle, the mounting rail comprising:
a housing (100, FIG.1) attachable to the vehicle and including a first portion and a second portion;
a first channel (110A) extending along the first portion of the housing between a first end and a second end, the first end defining an opening to the first channel.
EP 832 discloses a sleeve (31) acting as an end cap for the rail, the sleeve being fitted onto and/or into the profile of the housing (100) and fixed thereto by gluing, welding, or riveting.
For claim 11, EP 832 further comprises a first vehicle accessory (200) attached to an accessory mount including a post (see corresponding post hole/opening, FIG.5), the post configured to enter the first channel at the opening of the first channel when the lock is in the unlocked state.
EP 832 fails to provide a removable end cap and the recited lock.
PNG
media_image5.png
444
597
media_image5.png
Greyscale
WO 99/60670 (WO 670) teaches the recited lock as seen in FIG.1 Specifically, a lock (68) is provided located proximate to an opening in a first channel (slot 42), the lock disposed in a lock housing and movable relative to the lock housing between a locked state blocking entry into the opening of the first channel and an unlocked state spaced apart from the opening of the first channel. WO 670 further discloses accessories that are shaped such that when provided or inserted within the channel the accessories cannot be removed without unlocking the lock.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the sleeve of EP 832 to be removable and including a lock as taught by WO 670 and further to have provided accessories of EP 832 to be shaped such that the accessories are only removable via an opening in an end of the channel as taught by WO 670 in order to prevent the accessories from unwanted removal and protect them from theft.
For claims 2 and 14, the lock extends (see WO 670, FIGS. 4-5) from an outer surface of the lock housing in the locked state and is recessed (FIG.1) from the outer surface of the lock housing in the unlocked state.
For claim 5, the vehicle accessory (200) supported by an accessory mount (to fit within groove, 110A) is selectively received by the first channel, the accessory mount movable relative to and within the first channel along the length of the housing between a plurality of positions.
For claims 6 and 16, the mounting rail includes a first electrical connector ([0022]-[0023]) and the accessory mount includes a second electrical connector, the first electrical connector selectively coupled to the second electrical connector to form an electrical connection between the mounting rail and the accessory mount to provide at least one of power and data from the vehicle to the vehicle accessory.
For claims 7 and 17, the accessory is set forth to be “tablets or computers or telephones” which can implicitly include a USB connection.
For claims 8 and 12, the vehicle accessory is a display or switch ([0023]).
For claims 9 and 13, the accessory mount includes a latch assembly ([0060], [0063]), the latch assembly configured to selectively secure a position of the accessory mount relative to the housing.
For claim 10, a vehicle is provided incorporating the mounting rail of Claim 1.
Claims 3-4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 832, as modified above, and further in view of CN10984098 (CN 980).
EP 832, as modified, provides a lock which operate manually to move between the locked and unlocked states.
EP 832, as modified, fails to anticipate the lock movable in response to a signal received from an external device, the external device being at least one of a mobile phone or a tablet.
CN 980 describes an automatic lock that operates by detecting a mobile phone Bluetooth signal to automatically unlock. The automatic lock “at least comprises a Bluetooth module, a main control module, an unlocking motor and a power supply module” and is configured to identify whether a received command is initiated by a user according to automatic unlocking instructions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have substituted an automatic lock of the type taught by CN 980 in place of the manual lock of EP 832, as modified, in order to allow automatic locking and unlocking.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HILARY L GUTMAN whose telephone number is 571.272.6662. 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, PAUL DICKSON can be reached on 571.272.7742. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the 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. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HILARY L GUTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614