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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the subject matter of claim 6 and 18 is not present in the specification.
Drawings
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 features of claim 6 and 18 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 § 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) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shangle et al. 10794412 in view of Nelson (Patent No. 8,087,859).
Re: claim 1, Shangle et al. teaches a barrier assembly (Fig. 4) configured to at least partially span an opening of a cargo compartment, the barrier assembly comprising: a track (Fig. 2 - 2) configured to attach to a side wall of the cargo compartment (Col. 2 – lines 56-67), the track comprising a first terminal end and a second terminal end (Fig. 2 – 2); a hinge (8) that is coupled to the track and that is operable to transit along the track and to releasably lock into any of a plurality of hinge positions between the first terminal end and the second terminal end (See Figs. 4, 5, and 7); a panel (6) having a first side edge (Annotated Fig. 2 – first edge) and a second side edge (Annotated Fig. 2 – second edge), which is opposite the first side edge; the first side edge coupled to the hinge (See Fig. 4 - @ element 10). Shangle et al. fails to teach the second side edge comprising a releasable fastener.
However, Nelson teaches a panel (Fig. 1 - 100) with the second side edge (edge at element 114) comprising a releasable fastener (114).
Shangle et al. and Nelson are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of cargo securement. 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 Shangle et al.’s panel with those of Nelson’s panel and fastener in order to provide the advantage of a system that is more diverse in securement. (i.e. The half panels of Nelson can be used to separate multiple zones in a cargo compartment over being restricted to sectioning by the full width of the container with Shangle et al.’s panel.)
PNG
media_image1.png
206
390
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re: claim 2, Shangle et al. teaches wherein the track (Fig. 2 - 2) comprises a rail (32) along which the hinge (8) is slidable when transitioning among the plurality of hinge positions (See Figs. 5 to 7), and wherein the track (2) comprises a series of recesses (4) that extends between the first terminal end (Top of Fig. 2) and the second terminal end (Bottom of Fig. 2) and that engages the hinge (8) to retain the hinge in a respective hinge position of the plurality of hinge positions (See Fig. 4).
Re: claim 3, Shangle et al. teaches wherein: the hinge (8) comprises a hinge plate (Annotated Fig. 1 – hinge plate), which is attached to the panel (6), and a slider bracket (Annotated Fig. 3 – slider), which slidably attaches to the rail (32); and the hinge plate is, via a first knuckle (Annotated Fig. 1 – knuckle), pivotably coupled (10) to the slider bracket (slider).
PNG
media_image2.png
492
454
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
296
510
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re: claim 4, Shangle et al. teaches wherein: a pawl (Fig. 4 – 12) is pivotably coupled (14) to the slider bracket (Annotated Fig. 3 – slider) and comprises a head (16) configured to mate with any recess of the series of recesses (4); and the first knuckle comprises a camming surface (22) that, when the hinge plate pivots relative to the slider bracket (See Fig. 4 and 5), engages the pawl (See Fig. 5).
Re: claim 5, Shangle et al. teaches wherein the hinge (8) comprises a spring (Fig. 4 – 18) that biases the pawl (12), and wherein the camming surface (22) engaging the pawl (12) counteracts a force (See Fig. 5) associated with the spring (18).
Re: claim 6, Shangle et al. teaches wherein the hinge plate is co-planar with a first plane (Annotated Fig. 5 – first plane) and the slider bracket is co-planar with a second plane (Annotated Fig. 5 – second plane), which intersects with the first plane at an angle (angle); and wherein engagement of the camming surface (22) with the pawl (12) retains the head in a position disengaged from any of the recesses (See Fig. 5) when the angle is between 55 degrees and 140 degrees (Col. 4 – lines 29-41 – this citing states that the pawl is completely released when the angle is at least 5-30 degrees).
PNG
media_image4.png
328
596
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Re: claim 7, Shangle et al. teaches a panel (6) as applied in claim 1. Shangle et al. is silent on wherein the panel comprises a composite polymer material.
However, Nelson teaches wherein the panel (100) comprises a composite polymer material (Col. 10 - lines 6-29).
Shangle et al. and Nelson are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of cargo securement. 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 Shangle et al.’s panel with those of Nelson’s panel material in order to provide the advantage of a system that is more diverse in securement (i.e. the material that Nelson’s panel is made of has the ability to flex and bend such that a snug fit is made onto the materials being secured).
Re: claim 8, Shangle et al. in view of Nelson teaches claim 1. Nelson as applied in claim 1 further teaches wherein the releasable fastener (Fig. 3 – 114) comprises an adjustable-length strap (110 & 115).
Re: claim 9, Shangle et al. in view of Nelson teaches claim 8. Nelson as applied in claim 8 further teaches wherein the strap comprises one of a male connector or a female connector (Col. 6 – lines 7-10 & Fig. 3 - 116).
Re: claim 10, Shangle et al. in view of Nelson teaches claim 1. Nelson as applied in claim 1 further teaches wherein the barrier assembly comprises an anchor (142) that is attachable to the side wall, and wherein the releasable fastener (114) is attachable to the anchor (142) (Col. 8 – lines 23-29).
Re: claim 11, Shangle et al. in view of Nelson teaches claim 1. Nelson as applied in claim 1 further teaches wherein the releasable fastener (114) is attachable to a second panel (Fig. 1 – 100’) (Col. 8 – lines 23-29).
Re: claim 12, Shangle et al. in view of Nelson teaches claim 1. Nelson as applied in claim 1 further teaches wherein the releasable fastener (114) is attachable to an opposing wall that is opposite the side wall (Col. 8 – lines 23-29).
Re: claim 13, Shangle et al. teaches a cargo compartment (Fig. 7) comprising: a first side wall (left 101); a second side wall (right 101) that is opposite the first side wall and is spaced apart from the first side wall by a distance (See Fig. 7); and a barrier assembly (Fig. 4) configured to at least partially span the distance, the barrier assembly comprising: a track (2) configured to attach to the first side wall (left 101) of the cargo compartment, the track comprising a first terminal end (Top of Fig. 7) and a second terminal end (Bottom of Fig. 7); a hinge (8) that is coupled to the track (See Fig. 3) and that is operable to transit along the track (See Figs. 6-7) and to selectively lock into any of a plurality of hinge positions between the first terminal end and the second terminal end (Via element 4, see also Figs. 4-7); a panel (6) having a first side edge (Annotated Fig. 2 – first edge) and a second side edge (Annotated Fig. 2 – second edge), which is opposite the first side edge; the first side edge coupled to the hinge (8). Shangle et al. fails to teach the second side edge comprising a releasable fastener.
However, Nelson teaches a panel (Fig. 1 - 100) with the second side edge (edge at element 114) comprising a releasable fastener (114).
Shangle et al. and Nelson are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of cargo securement. 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 Shangle et al.’s panel with those of Nelson’s panel and fastener in order to provide the advantage of a system that is more diverse in securement. (i.e. The half panels of Nelson can be used to separate multiple zones in a cargo compartment over being restricted to sectioning by the full width of the container with Shangle et al.’s panel.)
Re: claim 14, Shangle et al. teaches wherein the track (Fig. 2 - 2) comprises a rail (32) along which the hinge (8) is slidable when transitioning among the plurality of hinge positions (See Figs. 5 to 7), and wherein the track (2) comprises a series of recesses (4) that extends between the first terminal end (Top of Fig. 2) and the second terminal end (Bottom of Fig. 2) and that engages the hinge (8) to retain the hinge in a respective hinge position of the plurality of hinge positions (See Fig. 4).
Re: claim 15, Shangle et al. teaches wherein: the hinge (8) comprises a hinge plate (Annotated Fig. 1 – hinge plate), which is attached to the panel (6), and a slider bracket (Annotated Fig. 3 – slider), which slidably attaches to the rail (32); and the hinge plate is, via a first knuckle (Annotated Fig. 1 – knuckle), pivotably coupled (10) to the slider bracket (slider).
Re: claim 16, Shangle et al. teaches wherein: a pawl (Fig. 4 – 12) is pivotably coupled (14) to the slider bracket (Annotated Fig. 3 – slider) and comprises a head (16) configured to mate with any recess of the series of recesses (4); and the first knuckle comprises a camming surface (22) that, when the hinge plate pivots relative to the slider bracket (See Fig. 4 and 5), engages the pawl (See Fig. 5).
Re: claim 17, Shangle et al. teaches wherein the hinge (8) comprises a spring (Fig. 4 – 18) that biases the pawl (12), and wherein the camming surface (22) engaging the pawl (12) counteracts a force (See Fig. 5) associated with the spring (18).
Re: claim 18, Shangle et al. teaches wherein the hinge plate is co-planar with a first plane (Annotated Fig. 5 – first plane) and the slider bracket is co-planar with a second plane (Annotated Fig. 5 – second plane), which intersects with the first plane at an angle (angle); and wherein engagement of the camming surface (22) with the pawl (12) retains the head in a position disengaged from any of the recesses (See Fig. 5) when the angle is between 55 degrees and 140 degrees (Col. 4 – lines 29-41 – this citing states that the pawl is completely released when the angle is at least 5-30 degrees).
Re: claim 19, Shangle et al. in view of Nelson teaches claim 13. Nelson as applied in claim 13 further teaches wherein the releasable fastener (Fig. 3 - 114) comprises an adjustable-length strap (110 & 115).
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) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shangle et al. (Patent No. 10,794,412).
Re: claim 20, Shangle et al. teaches a method comprising: pivoting (Annotated Fig. 5 – angle), relative to a side wall (101) of a cargo container and in a first direction, a panel (6) that is attached by a hinge (8) to a track (2), which is attached to the side wall (101); after the panel (6) has been pivoted in the first direction by a threshold amount (Col. 4 – lines 29-41), which unlocks the hinge from the track, sliding the hinge along the track (See Figs. 4-5); and pivoting, relative to the side wall of the cargo container and in a second direction opposite to the first direction, the panel to lock the hinge relative to the track (See Fig. 4).
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