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 .
Examiner’s Note
The amended claims should include a clearly labeled claim 6 as “Canceled”, since it appears to be missing from the claims.
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.
Claim 4 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the clasp" in line 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 should depend on claim 2 instead of claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beijing (CN 110949077). Regarding claim 1, Beijing discloses a device for holding a hook to a vehicle (see technical field of Beijing in page 1 of translation provided by applicant), the device comprising:
a housing (1, see figure 1) mountable to a vehicle; and
a holder (3,41) coupled with the housing and operable to releasably hold a hook (2), the holder configured to:
hold the hook when the hook is positioned in the holder (hold the hook closed when the hook 2 is in the holder, see figure 2), and
release the hook when the hook is urged against the holder and applies a force to the holder that exceeds a threshold amount of force (state control mechanism 4 and sliding base/holder 3, see figure 1; “a state control mechanism, which is connected to the sliding base, so that the sliding base is impacted by the same direction of the traction pin twice, two jaws/hooks remain in a relatively open state after one impact, and after one impact, the two jaws remain relatively closed” see translation Page 1 Para. 8 “the state control mechanism 4 is connected to the sliding base 3 so that when the sliding base 3 is impacted by the traction pin twice in the same direction ---[that is, toward the rear side of the base 1]---, one of the impacts the two jaws 2 are kept in a relatively open state….afterwards, the jaws 2 become relatively open, and so on. After each impact, the relatively open and closed states alternately appear, so that the flexibility of the relative state between the jaws 2 can be achieved….translation of Page 3 Para. 7).
Regarding claim 7, wherein a spring (44) coupled the holder (3,41) with the housing (1) and urges the holder against the housing.
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 (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.
Claim(s) 2,3,9,15-19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beijing in view of Mackarvich (US 6971661).
Regarding claim 2, wherein: the holder in Beijing includes a clasp (the hooks/jaws open as shown in figure 1 and closed as shown in figure 2) that may be opened and closed, Beijing does not mention that, a portion of the hook is inserted through a loop formed by the clasp when the clasp is closed. However, Mackarvich discloses a hook (70) that is in used on a device for a vehicle. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Beijing by adding a hook that can be inserted into the clasp when the clasp is closed, in order to connected the clasp to a different embodiment (such as a hitch system), through the hook.
Regarding claim 3, Beijing further discloses, wherein the threshold amount of force opens the clasp when the clasp is closed (see translation of Page 1 Para 7 as it states “a sliding seat, which is slidably mounted relative to the seat body, slides relative to the seat body by withstanding the impact of the traction pin, and its sliding movement can be linked with the opening”, the impact of the pin can be considered to be a threshold amount as the impact opens and closes the clasp).
Regarding claim 9, wherein the combination of Beijing and MacKarvich end with, the holder includes a clasp (2) that may be opened and closed (as shown in Beijing’s figures 1 and 2), the clasp having a first jaw (one side of the clasp) and a second jaw (the other side of the clasp, wherein each jaw: has a distal end (furthest away from the spring 44), is pivotable relative to the other jaw (see figures 1 and 2 as the jaws pivot), and is configured such that when the clasp is closed (see figure 2) the distal ends of the jaws contact each other, and when the clasp is open (see figure 1) the distal ends of the jaws do not contact each other, and to hold the hook (which is brought in by the combination with MacKarvich), a portion of the hook (the hook end) is inserted through a loop (the jaws for a loop when closed) formed by the first and second jaws when the clasp is closed.
Regarding claim 15, Beijing does not mention the combination of the hook and holder with clasp’s, however MacKarvich does provide the a hook (70), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Beijing by adding a hook that can be inserted into the clasp when the clasp is closed, in order to connected the clasp to a different embodiment (such as a hitch system), through the hook.
the combination of Beijing and MacKarvich end with a method for holding a hook to a vehicle comprising: holding a hook with a holder of a device (connecting the hook to the holder and letting the holder hold the hook), wherein the holder is coupled with a body (1 in Beijing) of the device and the body is mounted to a vehicle; releasing the holder's hold on the hook by: urging the hook against the holder (by opening the holder, see figure 1 in Beijing, or by handling the hook off from the holder); and applying a threshold amount of force (the amount of force used to open the holder or the amount of force used to pick up the hook and decoupling it from the holder) to the hook to cause the holder to release the hook.
Regarding claim 16, wherein the combination of Beijing and MacKarvich ends with holding a hook (the hook from MacKarvich) with a holder including pivoting the holder (see figures 1 and 2 in Beijing) relative to a portion of the body (1 in Beijing) to position the holder to an open position.
Regarding claim 17, Beijing further discloses clasp’s on a distal end of the holder, wherein, the combination of Beijing and MacKarvich ends with a holder that holds the hook, closing the clasp to from a loop and inserting a portion of the hook through the loop to connect the hook to the loop.
Regarding claim 18, Beijing further discloses wherein holding a hook with a holder includes a spring (44) urging a proximal end of two jaws (2) of a clasp to a first position (closed position as seen in figure 2) within a cavity (see figure 2 in Beijing) of the device's body, wherein in the first position the device's body in combination with the spring, prevent each jaw from pivoting relative to the other jaw to open the clasp.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Beijing and MacKarvich ends with urging the hook against the holder includes urging/placing the hook against a contact surface (any area of the jaws) of the distal end of each of two jaws.
Regarding claim 22, Beijing further discloses, wherein applying a threshold amount of force to the hook (picking the hook up from the holder manually so that the device of Beijing can open its jaws without getting caught by the hook) includes: moving a proximal end of two jaws of a clasp to a second position (opening the jaws as seen in Beijing’s figure 1) within a cavity of the device's body, wherein in the second position the device's body does not prevent each jaw from pivoting relative to the other jaw to open the clasp, and pushing a distal end of two jaws away from each other to open the clasp.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-14 are allowed.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art of record such as Beijing and MacKarvich do show a housing and holder with clasp’s that open and close, wherein a hook can be inserted onto the closed clasp’s, however the combination does not show the holder being configured to “release the hook when the hook is urged against the holder and applies a force to the holder that exceeds a threshold amount of force”, additionally the art of record did not show “a winch mounted to the body that is operable to pull a cable” in combination with what has been claimed in the rest of the body of claim 12.
Claims 5,8,10,11,20 and 21 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 claims 5 and 8, the art of record did not include a square cylinder with a first and second portions and a cavity that extends into both portions, wherein the second portion is pivotable relative to the first portion.
Regarding claim 10, the art of record did not include “a portion of the threshold amount of force being applied to each of the contact surfaces in a direction away from the other contact surface”.
Regarding claim 20, the art of record did not include “applying a threshold amount of force to the hook to cause the holder to release the hook includes pivoting a first jaw relative to a second jaw wherein the first and second jaws are pivotally coupled with each other”.
Regarding claim 21, the art of record did not include “applying a threshold amount of force to the hook to cause the holder to release the hook includes applying a portion of the force to a contact surface of a distal end of each of two jaws”.
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 4, the art of record did not include the specific amount of force required for the clasp to release the hook.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marlon A Arce whose telephone number is (571)272-1341. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM - 4:30PM.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at 571-272-6265. 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.
/MARLON A ARCE/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611