DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is a single run-on sentence (i.e. not in narrative form) that is substantially similar to the independent claim,
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claim 16 is 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 16 recites a “second sensor”. This recitation is indefinite as there is no “first sensor” recited in claim 16 or its parent claim 1 thus making it unclear how many sensors are required.
It is noted that a “first sensor” is recited in claim 15. However, claim 15 depends indirectly from claim 1 and claim 16 is not dependent on claim 15. It is suggested that either claim 16 be made to depend from claim 15 or that the “first sensor” is introduced in claim 16 prior to the recitation of the “second sensor”.
Further, it is noted that there are no art rejections being made against claim 16 as it appears that claim 16 would contain allowable subject matter if the 112 rejection is overcome. However, should any amendments alter the examiner’s current understanding of the claims, the examiner reserves the right to apply art for a rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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, 8, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Salter et al. (US 20210070218).
Regarding claim 1: Salter discloses a vehicle-mounted securing apparatus 22 for securing an object loaded into a vehicle (Figs. 1, 4; [0039]). Salter discloses the vehicle-mounted securing device comprising a fixing module 26 provided on the object that needs to be secured when the object is loaded into the vehicle (Figs. 1, 4; [0039]). Salter discloses a magnetic module 24 provided in the vehicle configured to mechanically secure the object including the fixing module as a part of the fixing module is inserted into the magnetic module and configured to magnetically secure the object including the fixing module by a magnetic element provided inside the magnetic module (Figs. 1, 4; [0039]-[0047]).
Regarding claim 2: Salter discloses that the fixing module is provided at a lower end portion of the object (at least part of the fixing module would be at a lower end) that needs to be secured and the magnetic module is provided on an upper surface of a floor of the vehicle (Figs. 1, 4; [0039]-[0047]).
Regarding claim 3: Salter discloses that the magnetic module includes a fixing holder including a guide groove formed therein, that the fixing module includes a fixing guide configured to guide an insertion direction along the guide groove formed in the fixing holder, and that the fixing guide is inserted into the fixing holder so that the object including the fixing module is mechanically secured to the magnetic module (Figs. 1, 4, 8; [0039]-[0047]).
Regarding claim 8: Salter discloses that a pair of magnetic elements is provided inside the magnetic module, and wherein the pair of magnetic elements includes a first magnetic element in which directions of magnetic poles are fixed, and a second magnetic element in which directions of magnetic poles are changeable so that when the fixing module is inserted and the directions of the magnetic poles of the second magnetic element are changed, the fixing module is selectively magnetically-fixed (Figs. 1, 4, 5, 8; [0040], [0047]).
Regarding claim 11: Salter discloses that the magnetic module includes a lower plate provided inside a floor 34 of the vehicle, a housing including the magnetic element therein coupled to the lower plate, and configured to define an external wall of the magnetic module (Figs. 1, 4, 8; [0039]-[0047]).
Regarding claim 17: Salter discloses that the magnetic module includes: a housing including the magnetic element therein and configured to define an external wall of the magnetic module; and an upper plate covering an upper surface of the housing (Figs. 1, 4, 8; [0039]-[0047]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7, 9-10, 12-15, and 18-20 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.
Claim 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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.
Securing apparatus for securing cargo in a vehicle are very well known in the art including necessary structure and structure positioning relationships. Representative art which appears close to the claimed invention includes Salter et al. (US 20210070218), Gagnon et al. (US 20250065974), Vandewall et al. (US 20240252372), Thomas et al. (US 12599519), Behling et al. (US 20230294586), Cho (US 10330240), Nakai (US 20210188151), Schricker (US 11987212), Kulick (US 20200207279), Gutschenritter et al. (US 9532474), Yeh (US 20090193632), Holz (US 11897431), and Axline (US 11673505). In general, this art, alone or in combination, discloses various recited features, including but not limited to, a vehicle-mounted securing apparatus for securing an object loaded into a vehicle, a fixing module provided on the object that needs to be secured when the object is loaded into the vehicle, a magnetic module provided in the vehicle, configured to mechanically secure the object including the fixing module as a part of the fixing module is inserted into the magnetic module, and configured to magnetically secure the object including the fixing module by a magnetic element provided inside the magnetic module. Thus, upon reviewing these cited publications, and their included references, it appears that the claimed subject matter might teach a generally known concept. However, this art fails to disclose or fairly suggest the specifically recited positional relationships and features of the recited structural components. Specifically, the art does not disclose the detailed positional and attachment relationships of the fixing guide, the fixing bracket, the magnetic components, the magnetic component operations, and the remaining recited apparatus structure and the overall relationship to the vehicle and the cargo. It could be argued that the individual structure is generally known in the art and thus, could just be assembled to disclose the claimed invention. However, the instant invention clearly and specifically recites structural and positional relationships and combinations, which require a greater effort than just cobbling together known structures. Further, the claimed structures are sufficiently detailed to be distinguishable when configured as claimed. The examiner can find no motivation to combine or modify the references which would define a fully functioning apparatus as claimed in the instant application. Thus, it would not have been within routine skill to glean the specifically combined limitations of the instant invention, from the art, without the benefit of hindsight reasoning or extensive experimentation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARAS P BEMKO whose telephone number is (571)270-1830. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 (EDT/EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicole Coy can be reached on 571-272-5405. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/Taras P Bemko/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
7/28/2026
Prosecution Insights