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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7, 13, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stubbe (DE 102010037754 A1).
Re: claim 1, Stubbe teaches a track fitting (Fig. 1 - 2) for securing an item to a track, the track (Fig. 2 - 1) being defined by a channel (4) having a first undercut (5) and a second undercut (6) on opposite sides of a top opening (Annotated Fig. 5 – top opening), the track fitting comprising: a first fitting member (Fig. 2 – 11) having a first flange (Annotated Fig. 2 – flange) and a first face (Annotated Fig. 2 – face) on opposite sides thereof, and a first partial hole (16) on the first face; and, a second fitting member (12) having a second flange (18) and a second face (Annotated Fig. 2 – 2nd face) on opposite sides thereof and a second partial hole (16) on the second face.
PNG
media_image1.png
586
597
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
564
544
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re: claim 2, Stubbe teaches wherein: the first fitting member (11) and second fitting member (12) are each configured for independent top down insertion (See Fig. 2) into the channel (4) through the top opening (Annotated Fig. 5 – top opening), whereby the first flange (Annotated Fig. 2 – flange) can be inserted in the first undercut (5), the second flange (18) can be inserted in the second undercut (6), and the first face (Annotated Fig. 2 – face) can be disposed adjacent and generally parallel (See Fig. 1) to the second face (Annotated Fig. 2 – 2nd face); the first partial hole (16 of 11) and the second partial hole (16 of 12) define a substantially complete hole (See 16 of Fig. 1) for receiving a fastener (3) when the first face is aligned adjacent and generally parallel to the second face (See Fig. 1).
Re: claim 5, Stubbe teaches wherein the first fitting member (11) comprises a plurality of first partial holes (16 & 17) spaced along a length of the first fitting member (11) (See Fig. 2), the second fitting member (12) comprises a plurality of second partial holes (16 & 17) spaced along a length of the second fitting member (12) (See Fig. 2), and the plurality of first partial holes and the plurality of second partial holes define a plurality of substantially complete holes (Fig. 1 – 16 & 17) for receiving a plurality of fasteners (3) (See also Paragraph 0015) when the first face is aligned adjacent and generally parallel to the second face (See Fig. 1).
Re: claim 7, Stubbe teaches wherein the first flange (Annotated Fig. 2 – flange) is disposed along an entire length of the first fitting member (11) (See Also Paragraph 0038) and the second flange (18) is disposed along an entire length of the second fitting member (12) (See Also Paragraph 0038).
Re: claim 13, Stubbe teaches wherein: the first partial hole (16 of 11) has an axis that is generally parallel to the first face (Annotated Fig. 2 – face) and generally transverse to a longitudinal direction of the track fitting (2) (See Fig. 2); and, the second partial hole (16 of 12) has an axis that is generally parallel to the second face (Annotated Fig. 2 – 2nd face) and generally transverse to a longitudinal direction of the track fitting (2) (See Fig. 2).
Re: claim 15, Stubbe teaches further comprising a locking member (3), wherein: the top opening (Annotated Fig. 5 – top opening) is defined by a pair of opposing lips (Annotated Fig. 1 – lips) each having a plurality of scallops (15); a first portion of the locking member (3) engages an opposing pair of the plurality of scallops (15) (Annotated Fig. 1 – engaging scallops) and a second portion of the locking member (3) engages with at least one of the first fitting member (11) and the second fitting member (12) to prevent the at least one of the first fitting member and the second fitting member from moving (8) in a longitudinal direction relative to the track (See Fig. 6).
PNG
media_image3.png
608
674
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re: claim 17, Stubbe teaches a method for using the track fitting of claim 1 (See Rejection of Claim 1), the method comprising the steps of: inserting the first fitting member (Fig. 2 – 11) in the channel (4) through the top opening (Annotated Fig. 5 – top opening) (See Fig. 2); sliding the first fitting member (11) in a first lateral direction whereby the first flange (Annotated Fig. 2 – flange) is disposed in the first undercut (5) (See Fig. 2); inserting the second fitting member (12) in the channel (4) through the top opening (Annotated Fig. 5 – top opening) (See Fig. 2), whereby the second fitting member (12) is laterally displaced from the first fitting member (See Fig. 3); sliding the second fitting member in a second lateral direction whereby the second flange (18) is disposed in the second undercut (6) (See Fig. 4), the second lateral direction being opposite of the first lateral direction (See Fig. 2-4); sliding one or both of the first fitting member and the second fitting member until the first face (Annotated Fig. 2 – face) is adjacent the second face (Annotated Fig. 2 – 2nd face) and the first partial hole (16 of 11) is aligned with the second partial hole (16 of 12) (See Fig. 1), whereby the first partial hole and the second partial hole for a substantially complete hole (16 in Fig. 1); and, inserting a fastener (3) into the substantially complete hole (See Fig. 1).
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) 3-4, 6, 8, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stubbe in view of Cox et al. (Patent No. 10,266,098).
Re: claim 3, Stubbe is silent on wherein the fastener is a threaded fastener and the first partial hole and the second partial hole comprise a pair of threaded partial holes that are configured to receive the threaded fastener when aligned.
However, Cox et al. teaches wherein the fastener is a threaded fastener (Fig. 11 – 93) and the hole comprises a threaded hole (73) that is configured to receive the threaded fastener when aligned (See Fig. 11).
Stubbe and Cox et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of track fittings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Stubbe’s partial holes and fastener with those of Cox et al.’s threading in order to provide the advantage of a system with more positive engagement which would reduce the chance of the system coming loose from vibrations and movement.
Re: claim 4, Stubbe is silent on wherein the fastener is a threaded fastener and the first partial hole and the second partial hole comprise a pair of threaded partial holes that are configured to receive the threaded fastener when aligned.
However, Cox et al. teaches wherein the fastener is a threaded fastener (Fig. 11 – 93) and the hole comprises a threaded hole (73) that is configured to receive the threaded fastener when aligned (See Fig. 11).
Stubbe and Cox et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of track fittings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Stubbe’s partial holes and fastener with those of Cox et al.’s threading in order to provide the advantage of a system with more positive engagement which would reduce the chance of the system coming loose from vibrations and movement.
Re: claim 6, Stubbe teaches wherein the first fitting member (11) comprises a plurality of first partial holes (16 & 17) spaced along a length of the first fitting member (11) (See Fig. 2), the second fitting member (12) comprises a plurality of second partial holes (16 & 17) spaced along a length of the second fitting member (12) (See Fig. 2), and the plurality of first partial holes and the plurality of second partial holes define a plurality of substantially complete holes (Fig. 1 – 16 & 17) for receiving a plurality of fasteners (3) (See also Paragraph 0015) when the first face is aligned adjacent and generally parallel to the second face (See Fig. 1).
Re: claim 8, Stubbe teaches wherein the first flange (Annotated Fig. 2 – flange) is disposed along an entire length of the first fitting member (11) (See Also Paragraph 0038) and the second flange (18) is disposed along an entire length of the second fitting member (12) (See Also Paragraph 0038).
Re: claim 14, Stubbe teaches wherein: the first partial hole (16 of 11) has an axis that is generally parallel to the first face (Annotated Fig. 2 – face) and generally transverse to a longitudinal direction of the track fitting (2) (See Fig. 2); and, the second partial hole (16 of 12) has an axis that is generally parallel to the second face (Annotated Fig. 2 – 2nd face) and generally transverse to a longitudinal direction of the track fitting (2) (See Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stubbe in view of Bailey et al. (Patent No. 3,818,577).
Re: claim 9, Stubbe fails to teach further comprising a frangible connector connecting the first fitting member to the second fitting member with the first face aligned adjacent and generally parallel to the second face.
However, Bailey et al. teaches further comprising a frangible connector (Fig. 3 - 28) connecting the first fitting member (24) to the second fitting member (26) with the first face aligned adjacent and generally parallel to the second face (See 29).
Stubbe and Bailey et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of connectors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Stubbe’s first and second member with those of Bailey et al.’s frangible connection/manufacturing method in order to provide the advantage of reducing the cost of manufacturing and having the parts be easier to make (See Bailey et al. Col. 1 – lines 30-31).
Re: claim 10, Bailey et al. teaches wherein the frangible connector (fig. 3 – 28) comprises one of an adhesive, a weld (Col. 2 – lines 60-68 and Col. 3 – lines 12-24), and a tape.
Re: claim 11, Bailey et al. teaches wherein the frangible connector (Fig. 3 – 28) is formed integral (Col. 1 – lines 60-68) with the first fitting member (24) and the second fitting member (26).
Claim(s) 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stubbe in view of Cox et al. in further view of Bailey et al. (Patent No. 3,818,577).
Re: claim 12, Stubbe and Cox et al. fail to teach further comprising a frangible connector connecting the first fitting member to the second fitting member with the first face aligned adjacent and generally parallel to the second face.
However, Bailey et al. teaches further comprising a frangible connector (Fig. 3 - 28) connecting the first fitting member (24) to the second fitting member (26) with the first face aligned adjacent and generally parallel to the second face (See 29).
Stubbe, Cox et al., and Bailey et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of connectors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Stubbe’s first and second member with those of Bailey et al.’s frangible connection/manufacturing method in order to provide the advantage of reducing the cost of manufacturing and having the parts be easier to make (See Bailey et al. Col. 1 – lines 30-31).
Re: claim 19, Stubbe fails to teach further comprising the step of threading the hole while the first fitting member is still fixed to the second fitting member.
However, Cox et al. teaches further comprising the step of threading the hole (See Fig. 14 – 73). Cox fails to teach while the first fitting member is still fixed to the second fitting member.
It is noted by the examiner that Cox et al. is a one-piece construction.
However, Bailey et al. teaches the step of boring a hole (Col. 1 – lines 50-59) while the first fitting member (Fig. 3 - 24) is still fixed to the second fitting member (26).
Stubbe, Cox et al., and Bailey et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of connectors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Stubbe’s first and second member with those of Cox et al.’s threading with those of Bailey et al.’s frangible connection/manufacturing method in order to provide the advantage of reducing the cost of manufacturing and having the parts be easier to make (See Bailey et al. Col. 1 – lines 30-31), with the additional advantage of threading increasing positive engagement which would reduce the chance of the system coming loose from vibrations and movement.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stubbe in view of Kumar (US 2020/0155386 A1).
Re: claim 16, Stubbe fails to teach wherein the first flange includes an upper flange portion and a lower flange portion for engagement on opposite sides of an inwardly directed projection in a side wall of the first undercut of the track, wherein the upper flange portion is received in an upper undercut region while the lower flange portion is received in a lower undercut region.
However, Kumar teaches wherein the first flange (Fig. 15 – 1215) includes an upper flange portion (1210) and a lower flange portion (1220) for engagement on opposite sides of an inwardly directed projection (1225) in a side wall of the first undercut of the track (1105), wherein the upper flange portion is received in an upper undercut region (Annotated Fig. 15 – upper region) while the lower flange portion is received in a lower undercut region (Annotated Fig. 15 – lower region).
Stubbe and Kumar are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of track fittings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Stubbe’s flange with those of Kumar’s upper and lower flange and track shape in order to provide the advantage of increasing the strength such that the fitting is not pulled out of the channel in an accident (See Paragraph 0068 of Kumar).
PNG
media_image4.png
584
603
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stubbe.
Re: claim 18, Stubbe is silent on the method comprising the steps of: providing the first fitting member and the second fitting member without the first partial hole and the second partial hole; fixing the first fitting member to the second fitting member with the first face adjacent the second face; and, drilling a hole in a top surface of the first fitting member and the second fitting member to simultaneously form the first partial hole in the first fitting member and the second partial hole in the second fitting member.
It is noted that one having ordinary skill in the art would perform this step in the manufacturing process in order to get a properly sized hole for receiving a fastener.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP C ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-3421. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30 - 4:00 CT.
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 R Weisberg can be reached at 5712705500. 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.
/PHILIP C ADAMS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights