DETAILED ACTION
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 § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9, 11-13, 15-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0186312 to Martin (“Martin”).
Regarding claim 1, Martin anticipates a wideplate (e.g. adapter plate assembly 40, as shown in figs. 1-12 and discussed at para. 62) for attachment to (figs. 11-12 and para. 62) a vehicle (46, as shown in figs. 11-12), comprising: i) a wideplate body (e.g. adapter plate 58, as shown in figs. 1-6 and 11-12) larger than (figs. 1 and 11-12) a vehicle license plate (42, as shown in figs. 1 and 11-12) and configured to be mounted behind (figs. 1 and 11-12) the license plate (42), wherein a portion (e.g. front 60, as shown in figs. 2, 6 and 11-12) of the wideplate body (58) extending beyond (figs. 1 and 11-12) a perimeter (e.g. external edges, as shown in figs. 1 and 11-12) of the license plate (42) provides a display area (e.g. flat surface of front 60, as shown in figs. 1-2 and 11-12) configured to receive display items (e.g. advertising materials, and shown in figs. 1-2 and discussed at para. 67); and ii) a plurality (figs. 2-6 and 11) of wideplate mounting holes (e.g. outer apertures 100, disposed upon protrusions 41, 43, 45 and 47, as shown in figs. 2-3, 10B and 11-12, and discussed at para. 82) in the wideplate body (58), iii) wherein the wideplate mounting holes (100) are configured to align with (compare figs. 1-3 and 11-12) license plate mounting holes (e.g. apertures 52, as shown in figs. 1 and 11) to enable the wideplate (40) to be mounted behind (figs. 1-2 and 11-12) the vehicle license plate (42), such that the display area (aforementioned flat surface of front 60) remains uncovered (figs. 1 and 11-12; note that at least portions of said flat surface of front 60 outside of the spatial area of license plate 42 remain uncovered) and is visible beyond (figs. 1 and 11-12) the perimeter (aforementioned external edges) of the license plate (42) when the wideplate (40) is mounted to (figs. 11-12) the vehicle (46).
Regarding claim 2, Martin anticipates the wideplate of claim 1, wherein the wideplate body (58) comprises a tapered edge (e.g. rounded corners of adapter plate 58, as shown in fig. 1) for conforming to (figs. 1 and 11-12) a contour (e.g. rounded corners of bracket 44; compare figs. 1 and 11-12; note that bracket 44, located behind license plate 42, must have rounded corners analogous to those of license plate 42) of the vehicle (46).
Regarding claim 3, Martin anticipates the wideplate of claim 1, wherein the display area (aforementioned flat surface of front 60) comprises embossed (para. 73) or debossed features (e.g. protrusions 41, 43, 45 and 47, as shown in figs. 2, 4-6, 10A-B and 11-12).
Regarding claim 5, Martin anticipates the wideplate of claim 1, wherein the display area (aforementioned flat surface of front 60) comprises mounts (e.g. apertures 75 and 77, as shown in figs. 2-3 and 11) for receiving (figs. 11-12) attachable features (e.g. bracket 44 and bolts 87, as shown in figs. 11-12).
Regarding claim 6, Martin anticipates the wideplate of claim 1, further comprising protective features (e.g. connectors 94, as shown in figs. 9B and 11-12; note that said connectors will at least minimally protect the adapter plate 58 from damage from a bolt inserted therein) comprising at least one of protective feet and a protective border (e.g. top portion 96 and bottom portion 98, as shown in fig. 9B), wherein the protective features (94) are positioned on (fig. 9B and 10B) at least a backside (e.g. rear 62) of the wideplate (40) to butt against (compare figs. 9B and 11-12) a body (e.g. bracket 44) of the vehicle (46).
Regarding claim 9, Martin anticipates the wideplate of claim 1, further comprising at least one cutout portion (e.g. apertures 75 and 77, as shown in figs. 2-3 and 11-12) configured to accommodate vehicle obstructions (figs. 11-12; note that apertures 75 and 77 are positioned low enough that they do not interfere with the body of vehicle 46), wherein the cutout portion (75 and 77) is positioned on (figs. 2-3 and 11-12) the wideplate body (58) to align with (figs. 11-12) and avoid interference with (figs. 11-12) vehicle features (e.g. the body of vehicle 46, as shown in figs. 11-12) when the wideplate (40) is mounted to (figs. 11-12) the vehicle (46).
Regarding claim 11, Martin anticipates a method for installing (para. 87 and figs. 11-12) a wideplate (e.g. adapter plate assembly 40, as shown in figs. 1-12 and discussed at para. 62) on (figs. 11-12 and para. 62) a vehicle (46, as shown in figs. 11-12), the method comprising: i) positioning (figs. 1 and 11-12) the wideplate (40) in between (figs. 1 and 11-12) the vehicle (46) and a license plate (42, as shown in figs. 1 and 11-12) of the vehicle (46), the wideplate (40) having a wideplate body (e.g. adapter plate 58, as shown in figs. 1-6 and 11-12) larger than (figs. 1 and 11-12) the license plate (42); and ii) aligning (compare figs. 1-3 and 11-12) a plurality (figs. 2-6 and 11) of wideplate mounting holes (e.g. outer apertures 100, disposed upon protrusions 41, 43, 45 and 47, as shown in figs. 2-3, 10B and 11-12, and discussed at para. 82) in the wideplate body (58) with (figs. 1-3 and 11-12) license plate mounting holes (e.g. apertures 52, as shown in figs. 1 and 11) to mount (figs. 1 and 11-12) the wideplate (40) behind (figs. 1 and 11-12) the vehicle license plate (42), iii) wherein a portion (e.g. front 60, as shown in figs. 2, 6 and 11-12) of the wideplate body (58) extends beyond (figs. 1 and 11-12) a perimeter (e.g. external edges, as shown in figs. 1 and 11-12) of the license plate (42) providing a display area (e.g. flat surface of front 60, as shown in figs. 1-2 and 11-12) configured to receive display items (e.g. advertising materials, and shown in figs. 1-2 and discussed at para. 67), the display area (aforementioned flat surface of front 60) remains uncovered (figs. 1 and 11-12; note that at least portions of said flat surface of front 60 outside of the spatial area of license plate 42 remain uncovered) and visible beyond (figs. 1 and 11-12) the perimeter (aforementioned external edges) of the license plate (42) when the wideplate (40) is mounted to (figs. 11-12) the vehicle (46).
Regarding claim 12, Martin anticipates the method of claim 11, wherein the wideplate (40) comprises a tapered edge (e.g. rounded corners of adapter plate 58, as shown in fig. 1) for conforming to (figs. 1 and 11-12) a contour (e.g. rounded corners of bracket 44; compare figs. 1 and 11-12; note that bracket 44, located behind license plate 42, must have rounded corners analogous to those of license plate 42) of the vehicle (46), and the method further comprises aligning (figs. 1 and 11-12) the tapered edge (aforementioned rounded corners of adapter plate 58) with the contour (aforementioned rounded corners of bracket 44) of the vehicle (46).
Regarding claim 13, Martin anticipates the method of claim 11, wherein the wideplate (40) comprises embossed (para. 73) or debossed features (e.g. protrusions 41, 43, 45 and 47, as shown in figs. 2, 4-6, 10A-B and 11-12) in (figs. 2, 4-6, 10A-B and 11-12) the display area (aforementioned flat surface of front 60), and the method further comprises pressing (figs. 1 and 11-12) the license plate (42) against (figs. 1 and 11-12) a central portion (e.g. backing portion 57, as shown in figs. 2-3, 6 and 11) of the wideplate (40) between (compare figs. 1-3; note that at least some portions of license plate 42 will be positioned spatially between protrusions 41, 43, 45 and 47) the embossed or debossed features (41, 43, 45 and 47).
Regarding claim 15, Martin anticipates the method of claim 11, wherein the wideplate display area (aforementioned flat surface of front 60) comprises mounts (e.g. apertures 75 and 77, as shown in figs. 2-3 and 11) for receiving (figs. 11-12) attachable features (e.g. bracket 44 and bolts 87, as shown in figs. 11-12) in the display area (aforementioned flat surface of front 60), and the method further comprises attaching (e.g. at least indirectly, as shown in comparing figs. 1-2 and 11-12) display features (e.g. advertising indicia 78, as shown in figs. 1-2) to the mounts (75 and 77).
Regarding claim 16, Martin anticipates the method of claim 11, wherein the wideplate further comprises protective features (e.g. connectors 94, as shown in figs. 9B and 11-12; note that said connectors will at least minimally protect the adapter plate 58 from damage from a bolt inserted therein) comprising at least one of protective feet and a protective border (e.g. top portion 96 and bottom portion 98, as shown in fig. 9B), and the method further comprises positioning (compare figs. 9B and 11-12) the protective features (94) against (compare figs. 9B and 11-12) a body (e.g. bracket 44) of the vehicle (46) to prevent damage when installed (see the construction shown in figs. 11-12).
Regarding claim 19, Martin anticipates the method of claim 11, wherein the wideplate (40) further comprises at least one cutout portion (e.g. apertures 75 and 77, as shown in figs. 2-3 and 11-12) configured to accommodate vehicle obstructions (figs. 11-12; note that apertures 75 and 77 are positioned low enough that they do not interfere with the body of vehicle 46), and the method further comprises aligning (figs. 11-12) the cutout portion (75 and 77) with vehicle (46) features to avoid interference during installation (see the construction shown in figs. 11-12).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0079008 to Parenti (“Parenti”).
Regarding claim 7, Martin discloses the wideplate of claim 1, but does not disclose at least one hinged feature allowing the display area (aforementioned flat surface of front 60) of the wideplate (40) to move relative to a central portion (e.g. backing portion 57, as shown in figs. 2-3, 6 and 11) of the wideplate (40).
Parenti teaches the concept of providing at least one hinged feature (e.g. hinge 120) allowing an area (e.g. spatial area of hinge 120) of a wideplate (assembly shown in fig. 9) to move relative to (fig. 9) a central portion (upper portion, as shown in fig. 9) of the wideplate (aforementioned assembly shown in fig. 9).
Given that Martin and Parenti both concern similarly shaped license plate display assemblies (compare Martin fig. 1 and Parenti fig. 9), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the Parenti hinge 120 teachings to the Martin display tab 76 portion of front 60 (along with elongating the bracket 44 to extend behind said display tab 76 to permit an attachment of display tab 76 thereto), in order to provide the benefit of yielding a resultant assembly in which the Martin display backing portion 57 and license plate 42 attached thereto may be rotated away from the upper portion of bracket 44 as desired, as taught by Parenti para. 36.
Regarding claim 17, Martin discloses the method of claim 11, but does not disclose wherein the wideplate (40) further comprises at least one hinged feature, and the method further comprises moving the display area (aforementioned flat surface of front 60) of the wideplate (40) relative to a central portion (e.g. backing portion 57, as shown in figs. 2-3, 6 and 11) of the wideplate (40) via the hinged feature during installation.
Parenti teaches the concept of providing at least one hinged feature (e.g. hinge 120) allowing an area (e.g. spatial area of hinge 120) of a wideplate (assembly shown in fig. 9) to move relative to (fig. 9) a central portion (upper portion, as shown in fig. 9) of the wideplate (aforementioned assembly shown in fig. 9).
For the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 7, supra, it would have been obvious to apply the Parenti hinge 120 teachings to the Martin display tab 76 portion of front 60 (along with elongating the bracket 44 to extend behind said display tab 76 to permit an attachment of display tab 76 thereto.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,210,830 to Mayo (“Mayo”).
Regarding claim 8, Martin discloses the wideplate of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the display area (aforementioned flat surface of front 60) comprises a powered display configured to receive electrical power through an electrical power cord or photovoltaic battery power source.
Mayo teaches the concept of providing a powered display (e.g. illuminating device 3, as shown in fig. 2) configured to receive electrical power (col. 2, lines 64-65) through an electrical power cord (e.g. cord 5, as discussed at col. 2, line 65; note that an example of such cord 5 may be found in the embodiment shown in fig. 1) or photovoltaic battery power source.
Given that Martin and Mayo both concern license plate display assemblies, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the Mayo illuminating device 3 and cord 5 teachings to at least Martin’s display tab 76 as desired, in order to provide the benefit of yielding a resultant Martin assembly that with increased potential to effectively display advertising messages via illuminated indicia 78.
Regarding claim 18, Martin discloses the method of claim 11, but does not disclose wherein the wideplate (40) comprises a powered display in the display area (aforementioned flat surface of front 60), and the method further comprises connecting the powered display (3) to an electrical power source via an electrical power cord or photovoltaic battery power source during installation.
Mayo teaches the concept of providing a wideplate (e.g. license plate cover 50, as shown in fig. 2) comprising a powered display (e.g. illuminating device 3, as shown in fig. 2) in a display area (e.g. tabs containing instances of illuminating device 3, as shown in fig. 2), and connecting (col. 2, lines 64-66) the powered display (3) to an electrical power source (e.g. electrical system 140, as discussed at col. 3, lines 1-3; note that an example of such electrical system 140 may be found in the embodiment shown in fig. 1) via an electrical power cord (e.g. cord 5, as discussed at col. 2, line 65; note that an example of such cord 5 may be found in the embodiment shown in fig. 1) or photovoltaic battery power source during installation.
For the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 8, supra, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the Mayo illuminating device 3 and cord 5 teachings to at least Martin’s display tab 76 as desired.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0229634 to Collins (“Collins”).
Regarding claim 10, Martin discloses the wideplate of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the wideplate body (58) comprises a magnetic layer, providing a capability for magnetic attachment to the vehicle (46).
Collins teaches the concept of providing a wideplate body (e.g. retention frame 12, cover plate holder 40 and cover plate 30, together, as shown in fig. 6 and discussed at para. 30) comprises a magnetic layer (e.g. magnets discussed at para. 30), providing a capability for magnetic attachment (para. 30) to a vehicle (10, as shown in fig. 1 and discussed at para. 18).
Given that Martin and Collins both disclose license plate display assemblies, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the Collins magnet teachings to the rear side of Martin’s adapter plate assembly 40, in order to provide the benefit of yielding a resultant Martin adapter plate assembly 40 that is capable of attaching itself to a metal vehicle bracket 44.
Regarding claim 20, Martin discloses the method of claim 11, but does not disclose wherein the wideplate (40) comprises a magnetic layer, and the method further comprises magnetically attaching the wideplate (40) to the vehicle (46) during installation.
Collins teaches the concept of providing a wideplate (e.g. retention frame 12, cover plate holder 40 and cover plate 30, together, as shown in fig. 6 and discussed at para. 30) comprising a magnetic layer (e.g. magnets discussed at para. 30), and the method further comprises magnetically attaching (para. 30) the wideplate (12, 40 and 30, together) to a vehicle (10, as shown in fig. 1 and discussed at para. 18) during installation.
For the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 10, supra, it would have been obvious to apply the Collins magnet teachings to the rear side of Martin’s adapter plate assembly 40.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0135568 to Knapschaefer (“Knapschaefer”).
Regarding claim 4, Martin discloses the wideplate of claim 1, wherein the display area (aforementioned flat surface of front 60) comprises at least a flat (figs. 1-2 and 11-12) area (e.g. display tab 76, as shown in figs. 1-2 and 11-12) for receiving (para. 67; also note that the instant claim is drawn to a wideplate- not a method of use thereof) items (per para. 67, display tab 76 is configured to receive advertising thereon).
Martin does not disclose said items specifically being stickers.
Knapschaefer teaches the concept of providing stickers (para. 50; note that stickers and/or removable stickers are to be applied to the advertising band 164 shown in figs. 2-3).
Given that Martin and Knapschaefer both concern license plate display assemblies, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the Knapschaefer sticker and/or removable sticker teachings to the Martin display tab 76, in order to provide the benefit of yielding a resultant Martin display assembly presenting advertising information as desired.
Regarding claim 14, Martin discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the wideplate (40) comprises at least a flat (figs. 1-2 and 11-12) area (e.g. display tab 76, as shown in figs. 1-2 and 11-12) for receiving (para. 67) items (per para. 67, display tab 76 is configured to receive advertising thereon) in the display area (aforementioned flat surface of front 60), and the method further comprises applying the items (aforementioned advertising) to the flat area (76).
Martin does not disclose said items specifically being stickers.
Knapschaefer teaches the concept of providing stickers (para. 50; note that stickers and/or removable stickers are to be applied to the advertising band 164 shown in figs. 2-3).
For the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 4, supra, it would have been obvious to apply the Knapschaefer sticker and/or removable sticker teachings to the Martin display tab 76.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicants’ claim amendments, a further search of the pertinent areas of prior art was executed. The aforementioned references were identified within said search. Accordingly, Applicants’ arguments have been considered, but are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on the combinations of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Additionally, note that Applicants’ claim amendments have necessitated reconsideration of the claims indicated as being potentially allowable in the previously issued Office Action.
Conclusion
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new grounds 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN V LEWIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5052. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Daniel J. Troy can be reached at (571) 270-3742. 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 V LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights