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 Interpretation
2. The term “clips” in the claims is essentially being interpreted as a “bracket” or “fastener”. The term “clip” usually refers to a mechanical fastener with some sort of spring-loaded action or moveable part. Applicant’s “clip” is labeled as 28 and is described in paragraph [0037] of the specification as possibly including a flat mounting arm 30, maybe a leg 32 that wraps around the mounting bar 12, and maybe an opening 34 to align with an opening 20 in a side rail. These rigid parts as shown and described seem to be nothing more than a specifically shaped bracket or fastener broadly claimed as a clip.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 1 is objected to because “the storage containers” in the last line should be “the one or more storage containers”.
4. Claim 3 is objected to because the last line should read “mounted to the side rails”.
5. Claims 7, 10, and 18 are objected to because the limitation “the base” lacks proper antecedent basis.
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.
6. Claims 1-21 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. In claims 1 and 18 it is not clear whether or not the upright members of a windshield frame of a vehicle are being claimed in combination or not. Both claims use the functional language “for mounting” in the preamble as if the upright members are not being claimed in combination. Both claims then go on to use positive structural recitations such as “extending between and operably connected to” as if the uprights are being claimed in combination. These limitations need to agree with one another - either all functional or all structural. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed the upright members are not being claimed in combination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hill (US 9,199,582 B2).
Regrading claim 1, Hill discloses a vehicle accessory carrier system for mounting to opposing upright members of a windshield frame of the vehicle (none of the upright members, windshield frame, or vehicle currently being claimed in combination due to the functional language “for mounting to”), the system comprising: a mounting bar (10) extending between and operably connected to the opposing upright members (see Figure 1); mounting clips (20/25/27) for mounting the mounting bar to the opposing upright members, the mounting clips operably connecting the mounting bar to the opposing upright members (see Figure 1); one or more storage containers (45, Figure 5) removably mounted to the mounting bar; and a fastening system (30 along with the attachment bar(s) shown under 45, see Figure 5) for removably attaching the one or more storage containers to the mounting bar (see Figure 5).
Regarding claim 2, Hill discloses the vehicle accessory carrier system of claim 1, wherein the fastening system includes first and second mating engaging elements (30 along with the attachment bar(s) shown under 45, see Figure 5) for removably attaching the storage containers to the mounting bar, the first engaging element (30) affixed to the mounting bar and the second engaging element (bar under 45) mounted to the storage container.
Regarding claim 3, Hill discloses the vehicle accessory carrier system of claim 1 further including side rails (see angular corner rail in Figure 1), the side rails being mounted to the opposing upright members, wherein the mounting clips are mounted to side rails (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 4, Hill discloses the vehicle accessory carrier system of claim 3, wherein the side rails are configured to vary a mounting height of the mounting bar. A user can choose multiple heights along the side rail to mount the mounting bar using the clips, as clearly seen in Figure 1.
10. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stautzenberger, Sr. (US 8,091,749 B2).
Regrading claim 1, Stautzenberger discloses a vehicle accessory carrier system for mounting to opposing upright members of a windshield frame of the vehicle (none of the upright members, windshield frame, or vehicle currently being claimed in combination due to the functional language “for mounting to”), the system comprising: a mounting bar (7) extending between and operably connected to the opposing upright members (see Figure 1); mounting clips (9) for mounting the mounting bar to the opposing upright members, the mounting clips operably connecting the mounting bar to the opposing upright members (see Figure 1); one or more storage containers (11) removably mounted to the mounting bar; and a fastening system (see holes in Figure 4 and plastic fastener in Figure 7) for removably attaching the one or more storage containers to the mounting bar (see col 2 lines 38-42).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. Claims 2, 5, 7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stautzenberger, Sr. (US 8,091,749 B2) in view of Winkler (US 7,044,344 B2) and Heizer (US 661,986 A).
Regarding claim 2, Stautzenberger discloses the vehicle accessory carrier system of claim 1, wherein the fastening system includes first and second mating engaging elements (see holes in Figure 4 and plastic fastener in Figure 7) for removably attaching the storage containers to the mounting bar, the first engaging element (holes) located on the mounting bar and the second engaging element (plastic fastener) mounted to the storage container. Stautzenberger utilizes holes which are formed in the mounting bar and not affixed to the mounting bar as claimed. The term “affixed” in this case requires the first engaging element to be a separate element from the mounting bar.
Regarding claim 5, Stautzenberger fails to disclose the vehicle accessory carrier system of claim 2, and also fails to disclose wherein the first engaging element includes a V-shaped receiving element and the second engaging element includes a V-shaped insert element, the insert element being received in the receiving element. Stautzenberger only discloses the plastic fastener and aperture and fails to disclose any criticality to such attachment design.
Looking at Figure 7 of Stautzenberger, the plastic fastener appears to be of the semi-permanent type or at least of the type that would be difficult to remove. It’s shown as having ridges which would presumably engage within the aperture and a thin flat head that leaves the user with few options to remove easily. Winkler teaches another attachment design where a V-shaped receiving element and V-shaped insert element are used to removably attach a container to a vehicle where a user can simply the lift the container up and off the support. The V-shaped receiving element of Winkler, like the aperture of Stautzenberger, is formed as part of the container rather than being affixed/mounted to the container. Heizer teaches the same type of attachment as Winkler including a V-shaped receiving element (A/B) and a V-shaped insert element (C) where both elements are affixed/mounted to the respective supporting surface and article to be supported.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have replaced the plastic fastener and aperture attachment design of Stautzenberger with a V-shaped receiving element and V-shaped insert attachment design like that of Heizer, the motivation being to allow for easier removal of the container from the mounting bar, as taught by Winkler. This modification is also nothing more than a mere substitution of one known attachment design for another. There is no inventive step in simply choosing between such known designs absent a showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 7, Stautzenberger as modified above would include the vehicle accessory carrier system of claim 5, wherein the receiving element has a pair of opposing V legs extending outwardly from the base, the V legs spaced from each other by a gap, as taught by Heizer (see Figures).
Regarding claim 9, Stautzenberger as modified above would include the vehicle accessory carrier system of claim 7, wherein the V legs define a reduced dimension in a downward direction of the legs, as taught by Heizer (see Figures).
Regarding claim 10, Stautzenberger as modified above would include the vehicle accessory carrier system of claim 7, further including gussets formed on outer surfaces of the V legs between the V legs and the base, as taught by Heizer (see Figures).
13. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stautzenberger, Sr. (US 8,091,749 B2) in view of Winkler (US 7,044,344 B2) and Heizer (US 661,986 A) as applied above, further in view of Gunn (US 7,806,308 B2).
Regarding claim 6, Stautzenberger as modified above would include the vehicle accessory carrier system of claim 5, but so far fails to include wherein the receiving element has a base having upper and lower flanges to secure the receiving element to the mounting bar. Heizer, who teaches the mount now being used in the modified Stautzenberger system, only shows the base being attached to a flat surface with screws (see Figure 1). Gunn shows that it was already known for a mounting base (60) to be attached to a mounting bar (12) using upper and lower flanges (see Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have attached the receiving element base of the modified Stautzenberger system to the mounting bar using upper and lower flanges, where such attachment was already known to be suitable for such use, as shown by Gunn. This modification is also nothing more than a mere substitution of one known attachment design for another. There is no inventive step in simply choosing between such known designs absent a showing of unexpected results.
14. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stautzenberger, Sr. (US 8,091,749 B2) in view of Winkler (US 7,044,344 B2) and Heizer (US 661,986 A) as applied above, further in view of Bennett et al. (US 6,481,679 B1).
Regarding claim 8, Stautzenberger as modified above would include the vehicle accessory carrier system of claim 7, but so far fails to include wherein the V legs have respective transverse portions extending from the base and inwardly extending portions at ends of the transverse portions, the inwardly extending portions defining a receiving space between the inwardly extending portions and the base. Heizer, who teaches the mount now being used in the modified Stautzenberger system, shows the V legs each including one single angled portion that catches the V-shaped insert (see Figures 2 and 3) rather than inwardly extending portions and transverse portions that together define a receiving space. Bennett teaches that it was already known for the legs of a V-shaped receiving element to include inwardly extending portions (36,37) and transverse portions (34,35) that together define a receiving space for receiving a V-shape insert (14). 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 V-shaped receiving element of the modified Stautzenberger system with inwardly extending portions and transverse portions, where such receiving element design was already known to be suitable for such use, as shown by Bennett. This modification is also nothing more than a mere substitution of one known receiving element design for another. There is no inventive step in simply choosing between such known designs absent a showing of unexpected results.
15. Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stautzenberger, Sr. (US 8,091,749 B2) in view of Hodosh et al. (US 6,116,045 A).
Regarding claim 13, Stautzenberger discloses the vehicle accessory carrier system of claim 1, wherein the one or more storage containers each include contiguous upstanding front, rear and side walls, and a bottom wall to define an interior, wherein the bottom wall is joined to the upstanding walls front, rear and side walls (see Figure 4), but fails to disclose a top wall releasably joined to the upstanding front and side walls. Hodosh (Figure 9a) teaches a cooler container including contiguous upstanding front, rear and side walls, and a bottom wall to define an interior, wherein the bottom wall is joined to the upstanding walls front, rear and side walls (see Figures), and further including a top wall (232) releasably joined to the upstanding front and side walls (via zipper 258) where the cooler can be attached to a golf cart (see col. 16 lines 3-10). 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 container of Stautzenberger as a cooler like that of Hodosh, the motivation being to allow a user to keep drinks cold and accessible.
Regarding claim 14, Stautzenberger as modified above would include the vehicle accessory carrier system of claim 13, wherein Hodosh teaches the top wall is joined to the upstanding front and side walls by a closure (zipper 258), and is affixed to the rear wall such that the closure extends along the front and side walls (see Figures 9a and 9b).
Regarding claim 15, Stautzenberger as modified above would include the vehicle accessory carrier system of claim 14, wherein Hodosh teaches the closure is a zipper.
Regarding claim 16, Stautzenberger as modified above would include the vehicle accessory carrier system of claim 13, Hodosh further teaching a securing member (264) on the interior (see Figure 9d).
16. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stautzenberger, Sr. (US 8,091,749 B2) in view of Hodosh et al. (US 6,116,045 A) as applied above, further in view of Campbell (US 4,211,091 A).
Regarding claim 17, Stautzenberger as modified above would include the vehicle accessory carrier system of claim 16, but so far fails to include wherein the securing member is a strap for securing a cooling pack therein (cooling pack not currently being claimed in combination due to the functional language “for securing”). Hodosh teaches the securing member (264) securing a cooling pack (266) therein but teaches the securing member in the form of a sack and not a strap as claimed (see Figure 9d and col. 15 lines 45+). Campbell teaches that it was already known in the art to use a strap (20) within a cooler to secure a cooling pack (22) therein. 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 securing member of the modified Stautzenberger system as a strap, where such securing member design was already known to be suitable for such use, as shown by Campbell. This modification is also nothing more than a mere substitution of one known securing member design for another. There is no inventive step in simply choosing between such known designs absent a showing of unexpected results.
Allowable Subject Matter
17. Claims 11 and 12 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 and if the 112 rejections are overcome.
18. Claims 18-21 would be allowable once the claims objections and 112 rejections are overcome.
Conclusion
19. 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 9/12/25