DETAILED ACTION
The following action is in response to the amendment filed for application 18/681,917 on March 13, 2026.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 9-11, 13-14, 16, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olley (US 2883232) in view of Scheucher (EP 0841240A2). With regard to claim 9, Olley teaches an arrangement comprising: a longitudinal member 12 having a hollow profile, a fastening sleeve 140, wherein the fastening sleeve comprises a base body having a first end (bottom) and a shoulder at a second end (top), and a cross member 108 which has at least one fastening flange 128, wherein the at least one fastening flange of the cross member extends at least in some sections parallel to the longitudinal member (Fig. 3) and is connected to the fastening sleeve 140, wherein the fastening sleeve 140 is inserted into the longitudinal member and connected in a formfitting manner (flat surface to flat surface) to the longitudinal member in such a way that the fastening sleeve extends parallel to the cross member 108 (Fig. 3) and introduces acting tensile loads into the longitudinal member (Fig. 3). Olley lacks the teaching wherein the fastening sleeve has a support plate at the first end. Scheucher teaches a similar arrangement comprising a longitudinal member 1 (paragraph 3) having a hollow profile, a fastening sleeve 11, wherein the fastening sleeve 11 passes through a first opening 9 in an inner wall 5 of the longitudinal member and a second opening 10, wherein the fastening sleeve 11 has a support plate 13 at one end. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Olley to employ a fastening sleeve having a support plate at a first end in view of Scheucher with reasonable expectation for success in order to provide a “tilt-proof and highly load-bearing connection (paragraph 14).” With regard to claim 10, Olley and Scheucher teach the arrangement, wherein the fastening sleeve 140/11 passes through a first opening (bottom aperture/9) in an inner wall 5 of the longitudinal member and a second opening (top aperture/10) in an outer wall of the longitudinal member (Fig. 3). With regard to claim 11, Olley and Scheucher teach the arrangement, wherein the support plate 13 rests on an edge of the first opening (bottom aperture/9) and forms a first form fit with the inner wall 5 of the longitudinal member. With regard to claim 13, Olley teaches the arrangement, wherein the at least one fastening flange further comprises a fastening tab 128. With regard to claim 14, Olley teaches the arrangement, wherein the fastening tab is screwed (via 152) to the fastening sleeve 140 at the first end (does not claim threads within the sleeve for the screwed connection). With regard to claim 16, Olley and Scheucher teach a vehicle comprising the arrangement according to claim 9. With regard to claim 18, Olley teaches the arrangement, wherein the at least one fastening flange further comprises a fastening tab 128. With regard to claim 19, Olley teaches the arrangement, wherein the at least one fastening flange further comprises a fastening tab 128.
Claim(s) 15 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olley in view of Scheucher as applied to claims 13 and 14 above, and further in view of Takii (US 10640154). With regard to claims 15 and 21, Olley teaches the arrangement, wherein the fastening tab 128 is secured to the cross member 108 at one end (Col. 3, lines 44-45). Olley lacks the specific teaching wherein the securing method is a weld. Takii teaches a similar arrangement comprising a longitudinal member 20, a fastening sleeve 28, a cross member 54, a fastening tab 60, and welding T2 (and Col. 6, line 40) a means for securing two member together. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Olley to employ welding as the means for securing the fastening tab to the cross member at one end in view of Takii with reasonable expectation for success in order to provide a permanent means for securing without additional parts.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 17, 20 and 22-23 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: the prior art of record fails to show or render obvious the arrangement as claimed, and particularly wherein the shoulder rests on the an edge of the second opening and forms a second form fit with the outer wall of the longitudinal member, and including the remaining structure of claims 12 and 17, respectively. Claim 20 depends on claim 12. The present invention also particularly includes the arrangement, wherein the base body further comprises an internal thread, and including the remaining structure of claim 22. Claim 23 depends on claim 22.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Please Note: Olley and Scheucher lack the teaching of a shoulder as claimed in claim 12 (in combination with the support plate of claim 9), but Olley teaches the broad limitation of “a shoulder” (i.e. top end of the sleeve 140 that abuts the top aperture (Fig. 3)).
Suggestions for Applicant
Should applicant amend claim 9 to include the limitations of claims 12 (and 10), it is suggested applicant cancel claim 17, as the limitations would be redundant. If applicant amended claim 9 to include the limitations of claim 22, this would not be an issue.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
Submission of your response by facsimile transmission is encouraged. The central facsimile number is (571) 273-8300. Recognizing the fact that reducing cycle time in the processing and examination of patent applications will effectively increase a patent's term, it is to your benefit to submit responses by facsimile transmission whenever permissible. Such submission will place the response directly in our examining group's hands and will eliminate Post Office processing and delivery time as well as the PTO's mail room processing and delivery time. For a complete list of correspondence not permitted by facsimile transmission, see MPEP 502.01. In general, most responses and/or amendments not requiring a fee, as well as those requiring a fee but charging such fee to a deposit account, can be submitted by facsimile transmission. Responses requiring a fee which applicant is paying by check should not be submitting by facsimile transmission separately from the check.
Responses submitted by facsimile transmission should include a Certificate of Transmission (MPEP 512). The following is an example of the format the certification might take:
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being facsimile transmitted to the Patent and Trademark Office (Fax No. (571) 273-8300) on ____________ (Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate: _____________________________________
_____________________________________
(Signature)
If your response is submitted by facsimile transmission, you are hereby reminded that the original should be retained as evidence of authenticity (37 CFR 1.4 and MPEP 502.02). Please do not separately mail the original or another copy unless required by the Patent and Trademark Office. Submission of the original response or a follow-up copy of the response after your response has been transmitted by facsimile will only cause further unnecessary delays in the processing of your application; duplicate responses where fees are charged to a deposit account may result in those fees being charged twice.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROGER L PANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7096. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 05:30-16:00.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached at 571-270-3415. 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.
/ROGER L PANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/ROGER L. PANG/
Examiner
Art Unit 3655B
March 23, 2026