DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of claims
Claims 1-9 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Examiner notes the instant application claims foreign priority to a foreign application. Thus, it appears that the claims contain a machine translation into English that at times lacks clarity within the claims. While not necessarily warranting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for indefiniteness, Examiner does propose the following amendments within the claims for clarity purposes.
Examiner suggests amending the limitation defined in line 6 of claim 1 “a convex rib” to read as --at least one convex rib-- as it is later defined within claim 3 that there are two convex ribs of the fixing device. Accordingly, Examiner also suggests amending line 1 of claim 3 to read --wherein the at least one convex rib comprises two convex ribs--.
Examiner further suggests amending the limitation in line 6 of claim 1 “the convex rib being arranged with a clamping block” to read --each convex rib being arranged with a clamping block-- as claim 3 goes on to further define that there are two convex ribs and claim 4 goes on to further define that there are two clamping blocks, thus it provides clarity within the claims that each clamping block is a part of one of the convex ribs.
Examiner suggests amending the limitation defined in line 7 of claim 1 “a resisting piece” to read as --at least one resisting piece-- as it is later defined within claim 3 that there are two resisting pieces of the fixing device. Accordingly, Examiner also suggests amending line 3 of claim 3 to read --the at least one resisting piece comprises two resisting pieces--.
Examiner suggests amending claim 4 to read --wherein their respective convex rib; each clamping block having a curved structure-- as it is already suggested to define in claim 1 that each convex rib has a clamping block, and claim 3 defines there are two convex ribs, thus there are two clamping blocks.
Examiner suggests amending the limitation in lines 2-4 of claim 5 to read --the column is capable of cooperating with a rotational movement of the clamping blocks when the clamping blocks rotate[[s]] with the rotary seat-- as there are two clamping blocks within the scope of claim 5.
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.
Claims 1-9 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.
Claim 1 defines of “a low-speed electric vehicle” in line 1. The term “low-speed” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low-speed” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 1, nor Applicant’s disclosure, provides any standard or definition as to what would be considered “low-speed” as opposed to “high-speed”, or at what point an electric vehicle is no longer considered “low-speed”. As such, the term renders the claim indefinite. For the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret the limitation “low-speed electric vehicle” recited in claims 1 and 8 as reading as “
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a positive projection of the two convex ribs in a plane where the rotary seat is located is in a shape of a Taiji”. It is unclear what Applicant is intending to define when stating “in a shape of a Taiji”. Examiner understands that a Taiji appears to be a symbol within Chinese culture, however it appears that there are multiple forms of this symbol. Further, the “Taiji” is a symbol, not a shape. However, Examiner does recognize that within what Examiner understands to be the “Taiji” symbol that there are tear-drop shaped halves that make up said symbol. As such, for the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret that the above limitation reads as “a positive projection of the two convex ribs in a plane where the rotary seat is located comprises a tear-drop shape”.
Claims 2, 4-9 are rejected as they depend from a rejected claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonenberger (US 9,623,808) in view of Lee (US 7,201,354).
Regarding claim 1, Bonenberger discloses of an electric vehicle (100, Col. 4 line 61 – Col. 5 line 17 states the vehicle is electric) having a storage box (101) arranged on a rear end of the electric vehicle (see Fig. 1), but does not disclose of a fixing device comprising a rotary seat detachably connected to the storage box, and a mounting portion concavely formed on the electric vehicle; the rotary seat being configured to be rotatably assembled in the mounting portion; a mounting surface of the rotary seat is arranged with a convex rib, the convex rib being arranged with a clamping block, and a mounting gap is defined between a part of the clamping block and the convex rib; a resisting piece is convexly formed on the mounting portion, and the clamping block is clamped with or separated from the resisting piece when rotating with the rotary seat.
Lee (Fig. 1-8) teaches of a fixing device that is used to secure a first box (56) to a second component (18), wherein the fixing device comprises a rotary seat (82) that is detachably connected to the first box (see Fig. 1) and a mounting portion (36) that is concavely formed on the second component (see Fig. 1, 7), wherein the rotary seat is configured to be rotatably assembled in the mounting portion (see Col. 4 line 15 – Col. 5 line 2); a mounting surface (84) of the rotary seat is provided with two opposed convex ribs (see Annotated Fig. 1 below), each convex rib being arranged with a curved clamping block (86) disposed at an end thereof (see the clamping blocks 86 in Fig. 2-4 disposed at an end of the convex ribs identified in Annotated Fig. 1, see the curve of the clamping blocks in Fig. 2), wherein mounting gaps are defined between a part of each clamping block and its convex rib (see Annotated Fig. 2 below); wherein two symmetrically opposed resisting pieces (42, 44) are convexly formed on an inner wall of the mounting portion (see Fig. 7), each resisting piece being formed as a convex column along a middle of the mounting portion (see Fig. 7; each resisting piece 42, 44 has a curved column shape, which are located along a central vertical axis, i.e. middle, of the mounting portion), wherein a thickness of each resisting piece is less than a thickness of each mounting gap (as the resisting pieces are located between the clamping blocks and convex ribs when the rotary seat is fastened to the mounting portion as described in Col. 4 line 15 – Col. 5 line 2), and wherein the clamping block is to be clamped with or separated from the resisting piece when rotating with the rotary seat (see Col. 4 line 15 – Col. 5 line 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
364
374
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
396
575
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 Annotated Figure 2
While Bonenberger discloses that their storage box is secured at attachment points (103, 104, 105, 106 of Bonenberger) on the electric vehicle, they are silent on the specific fastening device used to secure to their storage box. However, Bonenberger does state that the attachment between the storage box and electric vehicle could be made by a variety of methods (see Col. 3 lines 39-53 of Bonenberger). As such, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bonenberger with the teachings of Lee, such that the storage box is secured to the electric vehicle by the fixing device of Lee, wherein the rotary seat of the fixing device is detachably connected to the storage box, and the mounting portion is concavely formed on the electric vehicle, wherein the rotary seat is configured to rotatably assembled in the mounting portion, a mounting surface of the rotary seat is provided with two opposed convex ribs, each convex rib being arranged with a curved clamping block disposed at an end thereof, wherein mounting gaps are defined between a part of each clamping block and its convex rib, wherein two symmetrically opposed resisting pieces are convexly formed on an inner wall of the mounting portion, each resisting piece being formed as a convex column along a middle of the mounting portion, wherein a thickness of each resisting piece is less than a thickness of each mounting gap, and wherein the clamping block is to be clamped with or separated from the resisting piece when rotating with the rotary seat, as such would provide a well-known fixing device that will securely fasten the storage box to the electric vehicle.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Bonenberger and Lee further teach wherein a thickness of the resisting piece is equal to or less than a thickness of the mounting gap (as taught in claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Bonenberger and Lee further teach wherein the convex rib comprises two convex ribs (two convex ribs are taught in claim 1), the resisting piece comprises two resisting pieces (two resisting pieces are taught in claim 1), and the two resisting pieces are symmetrically arranged on an inner wall of the mounting portion (as taught in claim 1).
Neither Bonenberger nor Lee explicitly disclose wherein a positive projection of the two convex ribs in a plane where the rotary seat is located comprises a tear-drop shape. However, Bonenberger and Lee are do not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the specific shape of the convex ribs when they are positively projected in a plane having the rotary seat. Applicant is reminded that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, changing the shape of a prior art device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the convex ribs, such that when positively projected in a plane where the rotary seat is located they comprise a tear-drop shape, as Bonenberger nor Lee disclose of any structural or functional significance as to its specific shape, and as such a change in shape is merely a design consideration within the skill of the art that would yield expected and predictable results.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Bonenberger and Lee further teach wherein the clamping block comprises two clamping blocks (two clamping blocks are taught in claim 1), and each of the two clamping blocks is disposed at an end of a corresponding convex rib (as taught in claim 1); each clamping block is a curved structure (as taught in claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Bonenberger and Lee further teach wherein a column is convexly formed on a middle part of the mounting portion (resisting pieces are formed as convex columns along a middle part of the mounting portion as taught in claim 1); and the column has a sliding surface (the sliding surface of each column is that which faces each clamping block when the rotary seat is secured to the mounting portion), the column is capable of cooperating with a rotation movement of the clamping blocks when the clamping blocks rotate with the rotary seat (as taught in claim 1, see Col. 4 line 15 – Col. 5 line 2 of Lee).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonenberger in view of Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Maeda et al. (US 3,816,882; hereinafter Maeda).
Regarding claim 6, neither Bonenberger nor Lee disclose of wherein an operating surface of the rotary seat defines a countersunk hole, and a rotation block is arranged in the countersunk hole.
Maeda (Fig. 1a-3c) discloses of a fixing device comprising a rotary element (11), wherein the rotary element comprises an operating surface defining a countersunk hole (16), and wherein a rotation block (15) is arranged in the countersunk hole (see Fig. 3c), wherein the rotation block serves as a handle to turn the rotary element (see Col. 6 lines 3-24).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bonenberger with the teachings of Lee, to have the rotary block comprise an operating surface defining a countersunk hole, and wherein a rotation block is arranged in the countersunk hole, such that the rotation block serves as a handle to turn the rotary element.
Regarding claim 7, neither Bonenberger, Lee, nor Maeda explicitly disclose wherein the rotation block is S-shaped. However, Bonenberger, Lee and Maeda do not disclose of any structural or functional significance as to the specific shape of the rotation block. Applicant is reminded that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, changing the shape of a prior art device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the rotation block, as neither Bonenberger, Lee, nor Maeda disclose of any structural or functional significance as to its specific shape, and as such a change in shape is merely a design consideration within the skill of the art that would yield expected and predictable results.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonenberger in view of Lee as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Peter et al. (US 2016/0040705; hereinafter Peter).
Regarding claim 8, neither Bonenberger nor Lee explicitly disclose wherein the fixing device further comprises a fixing seat; the fixing seat is arranged on the low-speed electric vehicle and coaxially disposed with the rotary seat, and a connecting mechanism is arranged between the fixing seat and the rotary seat.
Peter (Fig. 1-9) teaches of a fixing device comprising a rotary seat (3) configured to be mounted to a mounting portion (5), wherein the mounting portion comprises a fixing seat (37) coaxially disposed with the rotary seat (see Fig. 1), and wherein a connecting mechanism is arranged between the fixing seat and the rotary seat, wherein the connecting mechanism comprises a bump (52) arranged on the rotary seat and a clamping slot (42) arranged on the fixing seat (see Fig. 1), wherein the bump engages within the clamping slot and secures the rotary seat with the mounting portion (see [0055]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bonenberger with the teachings of Peter, such that the fixing device further comprises a fixing seat as a part of the mounting portion located on the electric vehicle, wherein the fixing seat is coaxially disposed with the rotary seat, wherein a connecting mechanism is arranged between the fixing seat and the rotary seat, and wherein the connecting mechanism comprises a bump arranged on the rotary seat and a clamping slot defined on the fixing seat, such that the bump engages within the clamping slot and secures the rotary seat with the mounting portion.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Bonenberger, Lee, and Peter further teach wherein the connecting element comprises a bump arranged on the rotary seat and a clamping slot defined on the fixing seat (as taught in claim 8).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN J BAYNES whose telephone number is (571)270-1852. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30AM-4:30PM EST.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached on 571-270-5281. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KEVIN J BAYNES/Examiner, Art Unit 3678