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 .
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 5, 12, and 18 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.
With Respect to Claims 5, 12, and 18
These claims recite that the “an anchor” is “a pair of anchors”, but “an anchor” is a single anchor and so cannot be a pair of anchors. For the purposes of Examination on the merits, Examiner takes the phrase “an anchor” to be “at least one anchor”, as that appears to be the intent based upon Examiner’s best understanding of the invention and the indefinite claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-3, 6-10, 13-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #10,662,650 to Lacroix (Lacroix) in view of U.S. Patent #4,267,948 to Lewis (Lewis), either alone or also in view of U.S. Patent #6,971,563 to Levi (Levi) and/or U.S. Patent #5,682,719 to Huang (Huang).
With Respect to Claim 1
Lacroix discloses a vehicle rack system for use with a vehicle (inasmuch as the disclosed frame is capable of being used as a rack and with an appropriate vehicle), the vehicle rack system comprising: a first column (extrusion structure 100, see e.g. FIGS. 11-13, a column inasmuch as it is usable as such, designated 100a for ease of reference) having a first end for being operably coupled to the vehicle (capable of this use with an appropriate vehicle and appropriate fastening structures to do so), the first column having a second end, the first column having a longitudinal slot (any of 290/292/294/296, see e.g. FIGS. 1-2 and 11-13) between and behind a pair of flanges (noting any pair of adjacent protrusions/flanges 150 and 152, 154 and 156, 158 and 160, or 162 and 164); a crossbar (a second extrusion member attached to 350, disclosed but not shown in the drawings, designated 100b for ease of reference) having a first end and a second end, the crossbar having a longitudinal slot (any of 290/292/294/296, see e.g. FIGS. 1-2 and 11-13) between and behind a pair of flanges (noting any pair of adjacent protrusions/flanges 150 and 152, 154 and 156, 158 and 160, or 162 and 164); a support plate (350) having a first linear edge generally parallel to a side of the first column, the support plate having a second linear edge generally parallel to a side of the crossbar (it attaches in similar fashion and so will also be generally parallel), the support plate having a third linear edge angled generally equidistantly to the first linear edge and the second linear edge (see, e.g. FIGS. 6-8 and 11-12, noting the angled side at the bottom right in FIG. 6 and towards the viewer in FIGS. 11-2); an anchor (300, designated 300a for ease of reference) positioned in the longitudinal slot of the first column, the anchor coupling the support plate to the first column; and another anchor (an identical 300, designated 300b for ease of reference) positioned in the longitudinal slot of the crossbar, the another anchor coupling the support plate to the crossbar (i.e. it couples in the same fashion to the crossbar as it does to the column); but does not disclose a first bracket assembly coupling the second end of the first column to the first end of the crossbar, the first bracket assembly having a first fastener passing into the first column through the second end of the first column, the first bracket assembly having a second fastener passing into the crossbar through the first end of the crossbar; or a second column having a first end for being operably coupled to the vehicle, the second column having a second end; or a second bracket assembly coupling the second end of the second column to the second end of the crossbar.
However, Lewis discloses forming a similar frame structure out of a pair of columns (20) and a crossbar (28) connected together via a similar support plate (68) attaches to the side of the column and the side of the support plate (see, e.g. FIG. 2) and the use of a bracket assembly (54) having a first fastener (bolt/screw shown but unlabelled in FIG. 2) passing into the first column through the second end of the first column, the first bracket assembly having a second fastener (64) passing into the crossbar through the first end of the crossbar (see, e.g. FIG. 2), and that the frame is used to form a vehicle rack system for use with a vehicle with the columns having a second end attached to the vehicle.
Levi discloses the use of extruded columns and a crossbar similar to those disclosed by Lacroix used to form a frame, the frame being a vehicle rack (see, e.g. FIG. 1 and description), the columns having a first end attached to the vehicle and a second end attached to the crossbar, and a similar support connector (76) connecting the column to the crossbar using a fastener in the tracks of the column and a fastener in the tracks of the crossbar.
Huang discloses attaching a similar column and crossbar forming part of a frame using a bracket assembly (40 in combination with screws 43) having a first fastener (screw 43) passing into the first column through the second end of the first column, the first bracket assembly having a second fastener passing into the crossbar through the first end of the crossbar.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Lewis, to use the extruded members and support plate of Lacroix to form a frame that acts as a vehicle rack system (e.g. a pair of columns each having an end attached to the vehicle and another attached to the crossbar via a support plate as taught by Lacroix, for clarity the second column is designated 100c for ease of reference), as a mere selection of an art appropriate frame and use and/or for the art known benefits of such a vehicle rack system (e.g. allowing for attachment of accessories to and/or supporting objects on/in the vehicle). It would further have been obvious, given the disclosure of Lewis to use both a side support plate and a bracket system as claimed, to add a bracket system as taught by Lewis/as claimed between each column and the support bar, in order to provide a stronger connection between the parts, better hold the parts together against undesired movement, and/or as a mere selection of an art appropriate attachment method between the frame members or at most a mere substitution of one art known attachment mechanism (a side plate alone) for another (a side plate in combination with a bracket).
Alternately, although Examiner maintains the position that Lewis provides sufficient motivation to use the extruded members and support plate of Lacroix to form a vehicle rack system, Levi discloses forming a vehicle frame out of extruded columns and crossbars connected together by a similar support connector attached via similar tracks/slots in each of the columns and crossbar and a fastener extending into the tracks/slots, which provides additional motivation for and/or evidence of the obviousness of using the extruded members of Lacroix/the combination to form such a vehicle rack system as the frame formed by the Lacroix members.
Alternately, Examiner maintains the position that Lewis provides sufficient motivation to use a bracket assembly as taught by Lewis/as claimed to connect the end of the crossbar to the end of each column using any suitable fastening means (i.e. the modification to allow the attachment is considered to be well within the level of ordinary skill in the art), to the degree that the Lewis structure is not compatible with the Lacroix structure without some modification, it would have been obvious to use the similar bracket assembly as taught by Huang to connect the two parts (i.e. Huang provides sufficient motivation to form the extruded member with one or more appropriately located screw holes to allow for attachment of the bracket system per Lacroix or Huang to attach the column(s) to the crossbar)
With Respect to Claim 2
The vehicle rack system of claim 1, wherein the support plate has a fourth edge (noting curved corner between the side portions opposite the third edge) generally parallel to the third linear edge (it is parallel at a tangent point along the curve and generally parallel between that point and where it meets the side portions opposite the third edge), the third linear edge being longer than the fourth linear edge, but does not disclose that the fourth edge is a linear edge.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the curved corner structure/gusset with a fourth linear edge/gusset generally parallel to the third linear edge, in order to provide greater stability to that portion of the plate and/or as doing so constitutes a mere change in shape which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04). It is noted that although shown in the drawings as a curved interior corner, this feature is not described in detail in the specification and so the curvature is clearly merely exemplary and a matter of design choice.
With Respect to Claim 3
The vehicle rack system of claim 2, wherein: the support plate has a fifth linear edge generally perpendicular to the first linear edge (noting bottom linear edge in FIG. 6); the support plate has a sixth linear edge (noting linear edge adjacent 354 in FIG. 6) generally parallel to the fifth linear edge (FIG. 6); and the sixth linear edge extends to the fourth linear edge (FIG. 6).
With Respect to Claim 6
The vehicle rack system of claim 1, wherein the support plate is separable from the first bracket assembly (as they are separate parts only connected via mutual connection to the column and crossbar, they are separable).
With Respect to Claim 7
The vehicle rack system of claim 1, wherein the second end of the first column is spaced apart from the first end of the crossbar (per Lewis).
With Respect to Claim 8
A vehicle rack system for use with a vehicle, the vehicle rack system comprising: a first column (100a) having a first end for being operably coupled to the vehicle (per Lewis and/or Levi), the first column having a second end, the first column having a longitudinal slot (any of 290/292/294/296, see e.g. FIGS. 1-2 and 11-13) between and behind a pair of flanges (noting any pair of adjacent protrusions/flanges 150 and 152, 154 and 156, 158 and 160, or 162 and 164); a first plate (plate portion of bracket per Lewis and/or Huang that is adjacent the column) covering the second end of the first column; a crossbar (100b) having a first end and a second end, the crossbar having a longitudinal slot (any of 290/292/294/296, see e.g. FIGS. 1-2 and 11-13) between and behind a pair of flanges (noting any pair of adjacent protrusions/flanges 150 and 152, 154 and 156, 158 and 160, or 162 and 164); a second plate (plate portion of bracket per Lewis and/or Huang that is adjacent the crossbar) covering the first end of the crossbar; a second column (100c, per Lewis or Levi) having a first end for being operably coupled to the vehicle (capable of this use and/or per Lewis and/or Levi), the second column having a second end for being operably coupled to the crossbar second end; a support plate (350) having a first linear edge aligned with a side of the first column, the support plate having a second linear edge aligned with a side of the crossbar, the support plate having a third linear edge angled generally equidistantly to the first linear edge and the second linear edge (see, e.g. FIGS. 11-13); an anchor (300a) positioned in the longitudinal slot of the first column, the anchor coupling the support plate to the first column; and another anchor (300b) positioned in the longitudinal slot of the crossbar, the another anchor coupling the support plate to the crossbar.
With Respect to Claim 9
The vehicle rack system of claim 8, wherein the support plate has a fourth edge (noting curved interior corner edge opposite the third edge) generally parallel to the third edge (it is parallel at a tangent point and generally parallel near this point), the third edge being longer than the fourth edge.
Alternately, see the rejection of claim 3 above for details of how it would be obvious to form the fourth edge as a linear edge substantially parallel to the third linear edge.
With Respect to Claim 10
The vehicle rack system of claim 9, wherein: the support plate has a fifth linear edge (bottom edge in FIG. 6) generally perpendicular to the first linear edge; the support plate has a sixth linear edge (linear edge adjacent 354) generally parallel to the fifth linear edge; and the sixth linear edge extends to the fourth edge (FIG. 6).
With Respect to Claim 13
The vehicle rack system of claim 8, wherein the second end of the first column is spaced apart from the first end of the crossbar (per Lewis).
With Respect to Claim 14
A vehicle rack system for use with a vehicle, the vehicle rack system comprising: a first column (100a) having a first end for being operably coupled to the vehicle (capable of this use and/or per Lewis and/or Levi), the first column having a second end, the first column having a first longitudinal slot in the side (any of 290/292/294/296, see e.g. FIGS. 1-2 and 11-13) between and behind a pair of flanges (noting any corresponding pair of adjacent protrusions/flanges 150 and 152, 154 and 156, 158 and 160, or 162 and 164), the first longitudinal slot extending from the first end of the first column to the second end of the first column, the first column having a second longitudinal slot (any of 290/292/294/296 on the perpendicularly adjacent side, see e.g. FIGS. 1-2 and 11-13) in the long side between and behind a second pair of flanges (noting any corresponding pair of adjacent protrusions/flanges 150 and 152, 154 and 156, 158 and 160, or 162 and 164), the second longitudinal slot extending from the first end of the first column to the second end of the first column, the first column having a third longitudinal slot (any of 290/292/294/296 that is not one of the first and second) in the long side between and behind a third pair of flanges (noting any corresponding pair of adjacent protrusions/flanges 150 and 152, 154 and 156, 158 and 160, or 162 and 164), the third longitudinal slot extending from the first end of the first column to the second end of the first column; a crossbar (100b) having a first end and a second end, the crossbar having a longitudinal slot (any of 290/292/294/296) between and behind a pair of flanges (noting any corresponding pair of adjacent protrusions/flanges 150 and 152, 154 and 156, 158 and 160, or 162 and 164), the longitudinal slot of the crossbar extending from the first end of the crossbar to the second end of the crossbar; a first bracket assembly (per Lewis and/or Huang) coupling the second end of the first column to the first end of the crossbar, the first bracket assembly having a first fastener passing into the first column through the second end of the first column, the first bracket assembly having a second fastener passing into the crossbar through the first end of the crossbar; a second column (100c) having a first end for being operably coupled to the vehicle, the second column having a second end; a second bracket assembly (per Lewis and/or Huang) coupling the second end of the second column to the second end of the crossbar; a support plate (350) having a first linear edge generally parallel to an intersection of the short side and the long side of the first column, the support plate having a second linear edge generally parallel to a side of the crossbar; a locking member (300a) positioned in the first longitudinal slot of the first column, the locking member coupling the support plate to the first column; and another locking member (300b) positioned in the longitudinal slot of the crossbar, the another locking member coupling the support plate to the crossbar; but discloses that the column is substantially square and so does not disclose the first column having a short side and a long side, the short side being generally perpendicular to the long side.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to form the columns (100a/b) in a rectangular shape rather than a square one (it is noted that a rectangular shape can still be “substantially square” depending on how close the rectangle is to a square shape), in order to provide a wider area to strengthen the column against certain forces and/or as a mere change in shape which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04).
Alternately, Lewis or Levi discloses the columns having a long side and a short side, and Levi discloses having two longitudinal slots on the long side, which provides sufficient motivation for and/or evidence of the obviousness of modifying the shape of the columns of Lacroix/the combination to have a long side and a short side.
Alternately, as to the third longitudinal slot on the long side, Levi provides sufficient motivation to locate two longitudinal slots on the same long side of a column, noting that Levi’s column has two longitudinal slots on its long side.
With Respect to Claim 15
The vehicle rack system of claim 14, wherein: the support plate has a third edge angled to the first linear edge and the second linear edge; and the support plate has a fourth edge generally parallel to the third edge, the third edge being longer than the fourth edge (see the rejection of claim 3 or 10 above for details).
With Respect to Claim 16
The vehicle rack system of claim 15, wherein: the support plate has a fifth linear edge (bottom edge in FIG. 6) generally perpendicular to the first linear edge; the support plate has a sixth linear edge (edge adjacent 354 in FIG. 6) generally parallel to the fifth linear edge; and the sixth linear edge extends to the fourth edge (FIG. 6).
With Respect to Claim 19
The vehicle rack system of claim 14, wherein the support plate is separable from the first bracket assembly (as they are separate parts only connected via mutual connection to the column and crossbar, they are separable).
With Respect to Claim 20
The vehicle rack system of claim 14, wherein the second end of the first column is spaced apart from the first end of the crossbar (per Lewis).
Claims 4-5, 11-12, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #10,662,650 to Lacroix (Lacroix) in view of U.S. Patent #4,267,948 to Lewis (Lewis), either alone or also in view of U.S. Patent #6,971,563 to Levi (Levi) and/or U.S. Patent #5,682,719 to Huang (Huang) as applied to claim 3, 10, or 16 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication #2023/0108330 to Azzam (Azzam).
With Respect to Claim 4
The vehicle rack system of claim 3, but does not disclose wherein the support plate has a slot extending generally parallel to the third linear edge.
However, Azzam discloses forming a similar support plate (noting side of 18 including slots/openings 50) to attach a roof rack crossbar (22) to a roof rack column (16) with slots/openings (50) configured to receive one or more accessories or gear during use (p0027], FIG. 4)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Azzam, to add one or more slots/openings (50) extending generally parallel to the third linear edge in order to receive one or more accessories or gear during use as taught by Azzam.
With Respect to Claim 5
The vehicle rack system of claim 4, wherein the anchor is a pair of anchors (noting one anchor per aperture/bolt).
With Respect to Claim 11
The vehicle rack system of claim 10, wherein the support plate has a slot extending generally parallel to the third edge (see the rejection of claim 4 above for details).
With Respect to Claim 12
The vehicle rack system of claim 11, wherein the anchor is a pair of anchors (noting one anchor per aperture/bolt).
With Respect to Claim 17
The vehicle rack system of claim 16, wherein the support plate has a slot extending generally parallel to the third edge (see the rejection of claim 4 above for details).
With Respect to Claim 18
The vehicle rack system of claim 14, wherein the anchor is a pair of anchors (noting one anchor per aperture/bolt).
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 ADAM J WAGGENSPACK whose telephone number is (571)270-7418. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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.
/ADAM J WAGGENSPACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734