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
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
an anchor structure; and
a connecting apparatus in at least claim 1.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Ward (US 8,267,627).
As concerns claim 1, Ward discloses a bracket assembly (Ward - 50) for a work vehicle configured for securing the work vehicle to an anchor structure via a connecting apparatus (Ward – 42), the bracket assembly (Ward - 50) comprising:
a bracket body (Ward - 52) defining a first mounting aperture (Ward - 54), a second mounting aperture (Ward - 54), and a connecting aperture (Ward - space between 52 and 56 whereby hook 42 can connect); and
an attachment fastener (Ward - 150) configured to secure the bracket body (Ward - 52) to the vehicle, wherein the first mounting aperture (Ward - 54) is configured to receive a first end of the attachment fastener (Ward - 150) therein and the second mounting aperture (Ward - 54) is configured to receive a second end of the attachment fastener (Ward - 150) therein,
wherein the attachment fastener (Ward - 150) extends from the first mounting aperture (Ward - 54) to the second mounting aperture (Ward - 54) to define a mounting space with the bracket body (Ward - 52), the mounting space being configured to fit about a bracket mounting portion (Ward - 110) of the work vehicle, thereby securing the bracket assembly (Ward - 50) to the work vehicle, and
wherein the connecting aperture (Ward - space between 52 and 56) is configured to engage with the connecting apparatus.
PNG
media_image1.png
533
789
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As concerns claim 5, Ward discloses the bracket assembly (Ward - 50) of claim 1, wherein the attachment fastener (Ward - 150) is U- shaped and extends around the bracket mounting portion of the work vehicle. (Ward - Figure 3)
As concerns claim 6, Ward discloses the bracket assembly (Ward - 50) of claim 1, wherein the attachment fastener (Ward - 150) further comprises a first locking nut (Ward – 160) and a second locking nut (Ward – 160), the first locking nut and the second locking nut being configured to secure, respectively, the first end and the second end of the attachment fastener (Ward - 150) to the bracket body (Ward - 52).
As concerns claim 7, Ward discloses the bracket assembly (Ward - 50) of claim 1, wherein the first mounting aperture (Ward - 54) is disposed inward of the second mounting aperture (Ward - 54) and the connecting aperture (Ward - space between 52 and 56) relative to the work vehicle. (Figure 5 illustrates many possible apertures, which fit the claimed invention.)
As concerns claim 8, Ward discloses the bracket assembly (Ward - 50) of claim 1, wherein the connecting apparatus is a rope, a strap, or a chain (Ward – the hook 42 is considered analogous to the claimed rope, strap or chain, as they all perform the same function. Additionally, the connecting aperture is entirely configured to receive a strap, rope or chain as well) configured to be received within the connecting aperture (Ward - space between 52 and 56) and tied to the bracket body (Ward - 52).
As concerns claim 9, Ward discloses the bracket assembly (Ward - 50) of claim 1, wherein the connecting aperture (Ward - space between 52 and 56) is disposed outside of the first mounting aperture (Ward - 54) and the second mounting aperture (Ward - 54) relative to the work vehicle. (Ward - Figure 4)
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 of this title, 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 10, 12-14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward (US 8,267,627) in view of Wood et al (US 2024/0032473).
As concerns claim 10, Ward discloses a tie-down bracket system for securing a work vehicle to an anchor structure, the tie-down bracket system comprising:
at least one bracket assembly (Ward - 50) comprising:
a bracket body (Ward - 52) defining a first mounting aperture (Ward - 54), a second mounting aperture (Ward - 54), and a connecting aperture (Ward - space between 52 and 56); and
an attachment fastener (Ward - 150) configured to secure the bracket body (Ward - 52) to the work vehicle; and
wherein the first mounting aperture (Ward - 54) is configured to receive a first end of the attachment fastener (Ward - 150) therein and the second mounting aperture (Ward - 54) is configured to receive a second end of the attachment fastener (Ward - 150) therein,
wherein the attachment fastener (Ward - 150) extends from the first mounting aperture (Ward - 54) to the second mounting aperture (Ward - 54) to define a mounting space with the bracket body (Ward - 52), the mounting space being configured to fit about a bracket mounting portion of the work vehicle, thereby securing the at least one bracket assembly (Ward - 50) to the work vehicle.
wherein the at least one connecting aperture (Ward - space between 52 and 56) is configured to engage with at least one first connecting apparatus.
Ward fails to specify the use of a forward and rear mounting bracket.
Wood et al (US 2024/0032473) however teaches wherein a tie-down bracket system for securing a work vehicle to an anchor structure comprises a forward (Wood - 61) and rear (Wood – 74) mounting bracket for effectively securing a work vehicle to a trailer (T). (Wood – Figure 1)
PNG
media_image2.png
541
789
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Ward as taught by Wood to include a forward and rear tie-down bracket for the expected benefit of effectively securing the work vehicle to the trailer, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
As concerns claim 12, the combination discloses the tie-down bracket system of claim 10, wherein the forward connecting aperture (Ward - space between 52 and 56) is disposed outside of the first mounting aperture (Ward - 54) and the second mounting aperture (Ward - 54) relative to the work vehicle. (Ward - Figure 4)
As concerns claim 13, the combination discloses the tie-down bracket system of claim 10, wherein the at least one first connecting apparatus is a rope, a strap, or a chain (Ward – the hook 42 is considered analogous to the claimed rope, strap or chain, as they all perform the same function. Additionally, the connecting aperture is entirely configured to receive a strap, rope or chain as well. Furthermore, Wood illustrates the use of a strap or rope R) configured to be received within the forward connecting aperture (Ward - space between 52 and 56) and tied to the forward bracket body (Ward - 52).
As concerns claim 14, the combination discloses the tie-down bracket system of claim 13, wherein the at least one forward bracket assembly (Ward - 50) comprises a plurality of forward bracket assemblies (Wood – Figure 2 illustrates such a plurality) corresponding to a number of forward wheels on the work vehicle, and
wherein the at least one first connecting apparatus comprises a plurality of connecting apparatuses (Wood – R) corresponding to the plurality of forward bracket assemblies.
As concerns claim 16, the combination discloses the tie-down bracket system of claim 10, wherein the at least one second connecting apparatus is a rope, a strap, or a chain (Ward – the hook 42 is considered analogous to the claimed rope, strap or chain, as they all perform the same function. Additionally, the connecting aperture is entirely configured to receive a strap, rope or chain as well. Furthermore, Wood illustrates the use of a strap or rope R) configured to be received within the at least one rear connecting aperture (Ward - space between 52 and 56) and tied to the rear bracket body (Ward - 52).
As concerns claim 17, the combination discloses the tie-down bracket system of claim 16, wherein the at least one rear connecting aperture (Ward - space between 52 and 56) comprises a first rear connecting aperture (Ward - space between 52 and 56) and a second rear connecting aperture (Ward - space between 52 and 56) (Wood illustrates two rear brackets – See Figure 2), and wherein the at least one second connecting apparatus comprises a first rope (Wood – R) and a second rope (Wood – R) configured to be received within, respectively, the first rear connecting aperture (Ward - space between 52 and 56) and the second rear connecting aperture (Ward - space between 52 and 56) and tied to the rear bracket body (Ward - 52).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood et al (US 2024/0032473) in view of Ward (US 8,267,627).
As concerns claim 18, Wood discloses a work vehicle comprising:
a body;
a right wheel assembly connected to the body;
a left wheel assembly connected to the body (Wood – all vehicle parts are plainly visible in Figures 1 and 2);
wherein the right and left wheel assemblies each comprise:
a leg extending from the body;
a post extending from the leg; and
a wheel operatively connected to the post,
wherein forward connecting apertures (Wood – apertures of 61) are configured on the right and left wheel assemblies to receive at least one first connecting apparatus therethough to connect the at least one first connecting apparatus to the forward bracket bodies.
Wood fails to specify a detachable bracket design with a plurality of aperture, or a connecting fastener.
Ward, however teaches a bracket design wherein the first and second forward bracket assemblies each comprise:
a forward bracket body (Ward - 52) defining a first forward mounting aperture (Ward - 54), a second forward mounting aperture (Ward - 54), and a forward connecting aperture (Ward - space between 52 and 56); and
a forward attachment fastener (Ward - 150) having a first end and a second end,
wherein the first forward mounting aperture (Ward - 54)s are configured to receive the first ends of the forward attachment fastener (Ward - 150)s therein and the second forward mounting aperture (Ward - 54)s are configured to receive the second ends of the forward attachment fastener (Ward - 150)s therein,
wherein the forward attachment fastener (Ward - 150)s are configured to extend from the first mounting aperture (Ward - 54)s around the legs of the right and left wheel assemblies to the second mounting aperture (Ward - 54)s, thereby mounting the first and second forward bracket assemblies to the right and left wheel assemblies.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Wood as taught by Ward to include the use of detachable brackets for the expected benefit of being able to effectively secure work vehicles that were not provided with such tie-down points formed integrally into the body, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 11, 15, 19 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As concerns claims 2, 3, 11, and 19, the recitation of the alignment aperture configured to receive a wheel post of the work vehicle, as recited, in combination with the rest of the claimed invention is found to be unanticipated by the prior art of record.
As concerns claim 15, none of the prior art of record mentions or anticipates wherein a rear mounting aperture would be configured to be aligned with a cut-out defined in the work vehicle, as recited, in combination with the rest of the claimed invention.
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 AARON L LEMBO whose telephone number is (571)270-3065. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-4pm.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached on (571) 272-5405. 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.
/AARON L LEMBO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3679