Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
2. Claim 11 is objected to because “cavity” in line 8 should be “cavities”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
3. Claims 7-10 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
4. Claims 7 and 8 both recite a “large opening”. The scope of the term “large” is unclear as this is a very relative term. Examiner suggests simply deleting “large” for now. For the purpose of Examination, any opening shown to be larger than some other structure around it will be considered sufficient to satisfy this limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-5 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kahle et al. (US 9,782,000 B2) in view of Lane-Lohse (US 11,400,865 B2) and Edwards (US 6,145,718 A).
Regarding claim 1, Kahle discloses a vehicle front mounting system (1000) adapted to mount to a vehicle brush guard or similar apparatus for supporting a device (none of the vehicle, vehicle front, vehicle brush guard or similar apparatus, or even the device are being claimed in combination due to the functional language “adapted to” and “for supporting”), the vehicle front mounting system comprising: a pair of elongated tubular rails (100), each tubular rail having an elongated slot (defined by 111/112, see Figure 3C) and a pair of elongated cavities (105), each elongated slot opening to an elongated cavity; one or more threaded nuts (200) received and contained within each elongated cavity (see Figure 5B), the threaded nuts are permitted to slide within the elongated cavity while being restrained from rotating within the elongated cavity (see Figures 5A and 5B); and one or more brackets (300) adapted to be to fastened to the pair of elongated rails.
Kahle fails to disclose each tubular rail including a second elongated slot and where the rails are adapted to be attached to a vehicle brush guard. Kahle discloses mounting the rails on a wall using four screw apertures (112,114,116,118) but discloses no criticality to such mounting design (see col. 4 lines 19-49).
Lane-Lohse teaches that it was already known for rails (60) to include a bottom slot (61) that receives a nut (52) to which clamps (10) are attached in order to mount the rails to a tube (70) on a vehicle. Edwards teaches that it was already known to secure rails (5) to an ATV rack tube (6) using clamps (48).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the rails of Kahle with bottom slots like those of Lane-Lohse, the motivation being to allow a user to use threaded nuts as originally taught by Kahle within the newly added bottom slots to secure clamps thereto for mounting the rails to a vehicle tube(s), where such vehicle tube mounting was already known in the art, as collectively taught by Lane-Lohse and Edwards.
Regarding claim 2, Kahle as modified above would include the vehicle front mounting system of claim 1, wherein the pair of elongated slots face in opposite directions, one elongated slot facing towards the front (as originally taught by Kahle) and one elongated slot facing towards the rear (as taught by Lane-Lohse).
Regarding claim 3, Kahle as modified above would include the vehicle front mounting system of claim 2, further comprising: a pair of clamps (as taught by Lane-Lohse) adapted to be connected to each tubular rail (tubular rails still not being claimed in combination), each clamp having an opening for placement around a tubular member of the brush guard or similar apparatus and providing a friction fit with the tubular member (as taught by Lane-Lohse - see Figures).
Regarding claim 4, Kahle as modified above would include the vehicle front mounting system of claim 3, further comprising: a threaded fastener for each clamp (51 - as taught by Lane-Lohse), the threaded fastener extending through a hole (20 - as taught by Lane-Lohse) in a flange of the clamp and through the elongated slot and engaging a nut contained within the rear-facing elongated slot (as taught by Lane-Lohse - see Figure 5).
Regarding claim 5, Kahle as modified above would include the vehicle front mounting system of claim 3, wherein the one or more brackets comprises a first bracket attached to one tubular rail via at least one threaded fastener threadedly engaging the nut in the forward-facing elongated cavity of the one tubular rail and a second bracket attached to the other tubular rail via at least one threaded fastener threadedly engaging the nut in the forward-facing elongated cavity of the other tubular rail, as originally taught by Kahle (see fasteners 400).
Regarding claim 7, Kahle as modified above would include the vehicle front mounting system of claim 1, wherein the device comprises: a tube having at least one large opening in a side of the tube; first and second end caps removably engaging first and second ends of the tube; and one or more rod members connected to the tube and spanning across the at least one large opening, wherein the one or more brackets are fastened to the tube. The device is not being claimed in combination in claim 1 due to the functional language “for supporting” and claim 7 still does not use any positively structural recitation to claim the device in combination. There is no structure in Kahle that would physically prevent a user from choosing to fasten a tube to the brackets of Kahle instead of the firearm as shown by Kahle (see Figure 2), the tube having at least one large opening in a side of the tube; first and second end caps removably engaging first and second ends of the tube; and one or more rod members connected to the tube and spanning across the at least one large opening.
Regarding claim 8, Kahle as modified above would include the vehicle front mounting system of claim 7, wherein the at least one large opening comprises a front opening and a rear opening diametrically opposed to the front opening to allow air to freely flow into and out of the tube. The tube is still not being claimed in combination and as such, neither is the at least one large opening.
Regarding claim 9, Kahle as modified above would include the vehicle front mounting system of claim 8, wherein the device further comprises: an electro-optic package mounted within the tube adjacent the first end of the tube; and a laser backscatter target package mounted within the tube adjacent the second end of the tube. The device is still not being claimed in combination and as such, neither are the electro-optic package and laser backscatter target package.
Regarding claim 10, Kahle as modified above would include the vehicle front mounting system of claim 9, wherein the front and rear openings are located between the mounted electro-optic package and the laser backscatter target package. The tube is still not being claimed in combination and as such, neither are the front and rear openings.
Regarding claim 11, Kahle discloses a vehicle front mounting system (1000) for supporting a device, the front mounting system adapted to mount to a vehicle brush guard or similar apparatus (none of the vehicle, vehicle front, vehicle brush guard or similar apparatus, or even the device are being claimed in combination due to the functional language “adapted to” and “for supporting”), the vehicle front mounting system comprising: at least one elongated tubular rail (100) having a front elongated slot (defined by 111/112, see Figure 3C) opening to a front elongated cavity (105); at least one threaded nut (200) received and contained within the front elongated cavity (see Figure 5B), the threaded nuts being permitted to slide within the elongated cavity while being restrained from rotating within the elongated cavity (see Figures 5A and 5B); and at least one bracket (300) adapted to be to fastened to the at least one elongated rail.
Kahle fails to disclose the at least one tubular rail including a rear elongated slot and where the rails are adapted to be attached to a vehicle brush guard. Kahle discloses mounting the rails on a wall using four screw apertures (112,114,116,118) but discloses no criticality to such mounting design (see col. 4 lines 19-49).
Lane-Lohse teaches that it was already known for rails (60) to include a rear slot (61) that receives a nut (52) to which clamps (10) are attached in order to mount the rails to a tube (70) on a vehicle. Edwards teaches that it was already known to secure rails (5) to an ATV rack tube (6) using clamps (48).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the rails of Kahle with rear slots like those of Lane-Lohse, the motivation being to allow a user to use threaded nuts as originally taught by Kahle within the newly added bottom slots to secure clamps thereto for mounting the rails to a vehicle tube(s), where such vehicle tube mounting was already known in the art, as collectively taught by Lane-Lohse and Edwards.
Regarding claim 12, Kahle as modified above would include the vehicle front mounting system of claim 11, wherein the device comprises an atmospheric sensing assembly comprising: a tube having first and second ends and having first and second open windows facing in opposite directions; an electro-optic package mounted inside the tube at a first end of the tube; and a laser backscatter target package mounted inside the tube at a second end of the tube. The device is not being claimed in combination in claim 11 due to the functional language “for supporting” and claim 12 still does not use any positively structural recitation to claim the device in combination. There is no structure in Kahle that would physically prevent a user from choosing to fasten a tube to the brackets of Kahle instead of the firearm as shown by Kahle (see Figure 2), the tube having first and second ends and having first and second open windows facing in opposite directions; an electro-optic package mounted inside the tube at a first end of the tube; and a laser backscatter target package mounted inside the tube at a second end of the tube.
8. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kahle et al. (US 9,782,000 B2) in view of Lane-Lohse (US 11,400,865 B2) and Edwards (US 6,145,718 A) as applied above, further in view of Kiefer, IV et al. (US 11,891,124 B2).
Regarding claim 6, Kahle as modified above would include the vehicle front mounting system of claim 2, but so far fails to include an adapter plate having a plurality of holes; and a plurality of fasteners for attaching the adapter plate to the pair of tubular rails, wherein the one or more brackets are fastened to the adapter plate.
Kahle teaches the brackets (300) attached directly to the rails (100). Kiefer teaches that it was already known in the art to have an adapter plate (400) with a plurality of holes (see Figures) span and be connected between two rails (200) where a wide variety of items can be attached to the adapter plate (see col. 14 lines 14-50).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided an adapter plate like that of Kiefer attached to and extending between the rails of the modified Kahle system, the motivation being to allow a user to still attach the brackets of Kahle as well as a wide variety of other items as taught by Kiefer.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN MATTHEW LARSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8649. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-3pm. 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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at (571)272-4544. 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.
/JUSTIN M LARSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734 12/30/2565