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 4-6 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 Claim 4
The phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
With Respect to Claims 5-6, 13-15, and 18-20
These claims are rejected as they depend from a rejected claim and so incorporate its indefinite scope.
With Respect to Claim 9
The phrase "or the like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 (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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent #2,526,285 to Schuyler (Schuyler). Schuyler discloses:
With Respect to Claim 1
A luggage carrier adapted to be removably mounted on a car, the luggage carrier including a set of two luggage holders (noting left and right holders consisting of clamps 16, rods 20 and 46, and base plates 48) adapted to be arranged on the car at a distance from each other so that an elongate object may be carried by the luggage holders (capable of this use which is also the intended use, noting the elongated object 52, FIG. 2), each luggage holder extending in a vertical direction in its mounted state on the car (see, e.g. FIG. 2), and each luggage holder having a luggage carrying part (20, 46) and a car engagement part (16), the luggage carrying part being adapted to detachably engage a part of the elongated object (detachable as it extends into the open end and into the interior and is similarly removable therefrom), and the car engagement part being adapted to engage a top edge of a side window pane of the car (FIG. 2 and description), wherein, in each luggage holder, the luggage carrying part is arranged rotatably on the car engagement part about an axis being at least substantially vertical in the mounted state of the luggage holder on the car (inasmuch as 46 is a straight rod and when the upper and lower clamping plates 26/28 are compressed the rod 46 is released and is then disclosed as capable of sliding movement and also clearly functionally capable of rotation about the vertical axis of the rod 46 due to the structure involved).
With Respect to Claim 2
A luggage carrier according to claim 1, wherein the car engagement part has an at least substantially U-formed pane engagement portion adapted to engage the top edge and a part of each side of said side window pane (FIGS. 2-3).
With Respect to Claim 3
A luggage carrier according to claim 1, wherein the car engagement part is adapted to also engage a lower part of a car side window top frame when said side window pane is almost closed (capable of this use which is also the intended use, see FIG. 3).
With Respect to Claim 7
A luggage carrier according to claim 1, wherein, in the vertical direction of each luggage holder, the luggage carrying part is arranged above the car engagement part (inasmuch as most of it is arranged in this location, see e.g. FIG. 3).
With Respect to Claim 10
A luggage carrier according to claim 2, wherein the car engagement part is adapted to also engage a lower part of a car side window top frame when said side window pane is almost closed (capable of this use which is also the intended use, see FIG. 3).
With Respect to Claim 11
A luggage carrier according to claim 2, wherein, in the vertical direction of each luggage holder, the luggage carrying part is arranged above the car engagement part (inasmuch as most of it is arranged in this location, see e.g. FIG. 3).
With Respect to Claim 12
A luggage carrier according to claim 3, wherein, in the vertical direction of each luggage holder, the luggage carrying part is arranged above the car engagement part (inasmuch as most of it is arranged in this location, see e.g. FIG. 3).
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 4-6 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #2,526,285 to Schuyler (Schuyler) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent #11,433,825 to Fortenberry (Fortenberry) and/or U.S. Patent #2,797,851 to Leake (Leake).
With Respect to Claim 4
A luggage carrier according to claim 3, but does not disclose wherein the car engagement part has a preferably rounded car side window top frame engagement portion adapted to extend up into an at least substantially U-formed pane engagement portion of said car side window top frame.
However, Fortenberry discloses forming a similar car engagement part with a preferably rounded (for clarity, the limitation of “preferably rounded” is considered to be met inasmuch as it is only a preference and so is not considered a structural limitation of the claim, see the 112 2nd rejection above) car side window top frame engagement portion adapted to extend up into an at least substantially U-formed pane engagement portion of said car side window top frame (see 32a, FIG. 2 and description, for clarity although FIG. 2 is referenced as it shows the channel it is noted that FIG. 3 has a similar shape to that of Schuyler and is also disclosed as entering the channel in the same way as the FIG. 2 embodiment, and it is Examiner’s position that this structure will engage the top edge during use due to its shape and similar structure to Schuyler and/or that although the FIG. 2 embodiment is not shown to engage the top edge it will also engage the top edge with an appropriately structured window and channel) in order to be non-obstructive or non-pinching; Leake discloses forming a similar car engagement part with a preferably rounded car side window top frame engagement portion (16) adapted to extend up into an at least substantially U-formed pane engagement portion of said car side window top frame (see, e.g. 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 Fortenberry or Leake, to form the car engagement part of Schuyler with a car side window top frame engagement portion as taught by either reference, in order to better secure the car engagement portion in position in the vehicle and/or for the other benefits of that structure (e.g. as to Fortenberry being non-obstructive or non-pinching).
Alternately, although Examiner maintains that either reference alone is sufficient to meet the indefinite claim language, Fortenberry provides motivation to add a car side window top frame engagement portion and Leake provides motivation to form a car engagement portion that is an upward protrusion and is rounded and so the two together provide sufficient motivation to form the Fortenberry style upper clip portion as a rounded portion as doing so constitutes at most a mere change in shape which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04), or alternately to add a rounded upward protrusion as taught by Leake to extend upwardly from the top of the clip as taught by Leake.
With Respect to Claim 5
A luggage carrier according to claim 4, wherein the car side window top frame engagement portion extends in a straight line with a symmetry line of the at least substantially U-formed pane engagement portion (Fortenberry or Leake both show them at least substantially centrally located in a straight line with the window pane which is the line of symmetry of the U-formed pane engagement portion of Schuyler, and so it is Examiner’s position that the combined structure will have is portion in a straight line with the line of symmetry or alternately it would be obvious to do so to provide a symmetrical appearance, improve balance, and/or as a mere selection of an art appropriate location/shape for the part).
With Respect to Claim 6
A luggage carrier according to claim 5, wherein said symmetry line of the at least substantially U-formed pane engagement portion (central vertical line of the u-formed pane engagement portion) forms an acute angle with the vertical direction of each luggage holder (the vertical direction of each luggage holder being taken to be the direction that 20 extends, which forms an acute angle with the symmetry line, see e.g. FIG. 2).
With Respect to Claim 13
A luggage carrier according to claim 4, wherein, in the vertical direction of each luggage holder, the luggage carrying part is arranged above the car engagement part (inasmuch as most of it is arranged in this location, see e.g. FIG. 3).
With Respect to Claim 14
A luggage carrier according to claim 5, wherein, in the vertical direction of each luggage holder, the luggage carrying part is arranged above the car engagement part (inasmuch as most of it is arranged in this location, see e.g. FIG. 3).
With Respect to Claim 15
A luggage carrier according to claim 6, wherein, in the vertical direction of each luggage holder, the luggage carrying part is arranged above the car engagement part (inasmuch as most of it is arranged in this location, see e.g. FIG. 3).
Claims 1, 3, 8, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 2196592 to Thomas (Thomas) in view of U.S. Patent #9,936,828 to Adams (Adams).
With Respect to Claim 1
Thomas discloses a luggage carrier adapted to be removably mounted on a car, the luggage carrier including a set of two luggage holders adapted to be arranged on the car at a distance from each other so that an elongate object may be carried by the luggage holders (see, e.g. abstract), each luggage holder extending in a vertical direction in its mounted state on the car, and each luggage holder having a luggage carrying part (6 and related structure) and a car engagement part (3-4), the luggage carrying part being adapted to detachably engage a part of the elongated object (capable of this use which is also the intended use, see abstract), and the car engagement part being adapted to engage a top edge of a side window pane of the car (clearly capable of this use which is also the intended use, see page 1 lines 122-130 and Page 2 line 1, and in order to have 3 engage one side and the vertical portion of 4 engage the other side, the horizontal portion of 4 must engage the top or alternately to the degree some other construction might be possible such is clearly obvious as this is how such car window mounting hooks normally operate), but does not disclose wherein, in each luggage holder, the luggage carrying part is arranged rotatably on the car engagement part about an axis being at least substantially vertical in the mounted state of the luggage holder on the car.
However, Adams discloses forming a door mounted hook for carrying items with a luggage carrying part arranged rotatably on the car engagement part about an axis being at least substantially vertical in the mounted state of the luggage holder on the car, in order to allow the luggage carrying part to rotate to a non-use position when not in use, e.g. for storage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Adams, to add a rotating/pivoting structure (e.g. that taught by Adams or some other art known rotatable/pivotable structure) to the Schuyler luggage carrying part (for clarity, although other locations are also possible and would be obvious, locating it between 3 and 6 is considered to most resemble the Adams structure, i.e. between the portion contacting the car window and the hook portion), in order to allow for it to be rotated to a non-use position when not in use, e.g. for storage, and/or as doing so constitutes at most merely making adjustable, which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04).
With Respect to Claim 3
A luggage carrier according to claim 1, wherein the car engagement part is adapted to also engage a lower part of a car side window top frame when said side window pane is almost closed (page 1 lines 124-130 and Page 2 line 1 indicate that 4 engages the top and one side, and 3 engages the other side).
With Respect to Claim 8
A luggage carrier according to claim 1, wherein, in each luggage holder, the luggage carrying part 6) has the form of an upwardly open at least substantially U-formed or V-formed bracket.
With Respect to Claim 17
A luggage carrier according to claim 3, wherein, in each luggage holder, the luggage carrying part has the form of an upwardly open at least substantially U-formed or V-formed bracket.
Claims 2, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 2196592 to Thomas (Thomas) in view of U.S. Patent #9,936,828 to Adams (Adams) as applied to claim 1 above, either alone or also in view of Fortenberry.
With Respect to Claim 2
A luggage carrier according to claim 1, wherein the car engagement part (taken to be 3-4 or 4 in combination with the topmost portion of 3) has an at least substantially U-formed pane engagement portion (3-4 is substantially u-formed to the extent claimed) adapted to engage the top edge and a part of each side of said side window pane.
Alternately, making 4 longer in order to provide a larger window engagement surface to better secure the hook in position and/or making 3 shorter in order to reduce weight and provide a more compact structure would make the car engagement part more u-formed and would also be obvious as a mere change in size/proportion which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)) or a mere change in shape which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04).
Alternately, Fortenberry discloses forming a similar car engagement part that is u-formed, which provides additional motivation for and/or evidence of the obviousness of modifying the Thomas structure to have this shape.
With Respect to Claim 10
A luggage carrier according to claim 2, wherein the car engagement part is adapted to also engage a lower part of a car side window top frame when said side window pane is almost closed (inherently capable of this use with an appropriate vehicle, noting that the top of 4 will engage either the bottom of the channel if it extends therein or the side portions adjacent the channel if it is too wide to fit therein).
Alternately, Fortenberry discloses having a similar car engagement part extend into and engage the lower part of a car side window top frame when said side window pane is almost closed (FIG. 2) which provides additional evidence that the Thomas structure is capable of this use, and/or provides sufficient motivation to modify it to operate as such with a particular vehicle.
With Respect to Claim 16
A luggage carrier according to claim 2, wherein, in each luggage holder, the luggage carrying part has the form of an upwardly open at least substantially U-formed or V-formed bracket (as shown it is substantially u-formed).
Claims 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 2196592 to Thomas (Thomas) in view of U.S. Patent #9,936,828 to Adams (Adams) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent #11,433,825 to Fortenberry (Fortenberry) and/or U.S. Patent #2,797,851 to Leake (Leake).
With Respect to Claim 4
A luggage carrier according to claim 3, but does not disclose wherein the car engagement part has a preferably rounded car side window top frame engagement portion adapted to extend up into an at least substantially U-formed pane engagement portion of said car side window top frame.
However, Fortenberry discloses forming a similar car engagement part with a preferably rounded (for clarity, the limitation of “preferably rounded” is considered to be met inasmuch as it is only a preference and so is not considered a structural limitation of the claim, see the 112 2nd rejection above) car side window top frame engagement portion adapted to extend up into an at least substantially U-formed pane engagement portion of said car side window top frame (see 32a, FIG. 2 and description, for clarity although FIG. 2 is referenced as it shows the channel it is noted that FIG. 3 has a similar shape to that of Schuyler and is also disclosed as entering the channel in the same way as the FIG. 2 embodiment, and it is Examiner’s position that this structure will engage the top edge during use due to its shape and similar structure to Schuyler and/or that although the FIG. 2 embodiment is not shown to engage the top edge it will also engage the top edge with an appropriately structured window and channel) in order to be non-obstructive or non-pinching; Leake discloses forming a similar car engagement part with a preferably rounded car side window top frame engagement portion (16) adapted to extend up into an at least substantially U-formed pane engagement portion of said car side window top frame (see, e.g. 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 Fortenberry or Leake, to form the car engagement part of Schuyler with a car side window top frame engagement portion as taught by either reference, in order to better secure the car engagement portion in position in the vehicle and/or for the other benefits of that structure (e.g. as to Fortenberry being non-obstructive or non-pinching).
Alternately, although Examiner maintains that either reference alone is sufficient to meet the indefinite claim language, Fortenberry provides motivation to add a car side window top frame engagement portion and Leake provides motivation to form a car engagement portion that is an upward protrusion and is rounded and so the two together provide sufficient motivation to form the Fortenberry style upper clip portion as a rounded portion as doing so constitutes at most a mere change in shape which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04), or alternately to add a rounded upward protrusion as taught by Leake to extend upwardly from the top of the clip as taught by Leake.
With Respect to Claim 5
A luggage carrier according to claim 4, wherein the car side window top frame engagement portion extends in a straight line with a symmetry line of the at least substantially U-formed pane engagement portion (Fortenberry or Leake both show them at least substantially centrally located in a straight line with the window pane which is the line of symmetry of the U-formed pane engagement portion of Schuyler, and so it is Examiner’s position that the combined structure will have is portion in a straight line with the line of symmetry or alternately it would be obvious to do so to provide a symmetrical appearance, improve balance, and/or as a mere selection of an art appropriate location/shape for the part).
With Respect to Claim 6
A luggage carrier according to claim 5, wherein said symmetry line of the at least substantially U-formed pane engagement portion (central vertical line of the u-formed pane engagement portion) forms an acute angle with the vertical direction of each luggage holder (the vertical direction of each luggage holder being taken to be the direction that 7 or the direction that 9 extends, either which forms an acute angle with the symmetry line, see e.g. FIG. 2).
With Respect to Claim 18
A luggage carrier according to claim 4, wherein, in each luggage holder, the luggage carrying part has the form of an upwardly open at least substantially U-formed or V-formed bracket.
With Respect to Claim 19
A luggage carrier according to claim 5, wherein, in each luggage holder, the luggage carrying part has the form of an upwardly open at least substantially U-formed or V-formed bracket.
With Respect to Claim 20
A luggage carrier according to claim 6, wherein, in each luggage holder, the luggage carrying part has the form of an upwardly open at least substantially U-formed or V-formed bracket.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 2196592 to Thomas (Thomas) in view of U.S. Patent #9,936,828 to Adams (Adams) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent #7,681,768 to Gates (Gates), either alone or also in view of U.S. Patent #4,132,381 to McClellan (McClellan) and/or U.S. Patent #5,915,572 to Hancock (Hancock).
With Respect to Claim 9
A luggage carrier according to claim 8, and the use of a rope, strap, or the like to secure an article to the carrying device and an aperture (11) to attach the rope, strap or the like, but does not disclose wherein the outside of the at least substantially U-formed or V-formed bracket is provided with barbs adapted to hold a rubber band or the like (for clarity, it is noted that the rubber band or the like is clearly only functionally recited).
However, Gates discloses the use of barbs (17 as shown are widened barbs similar to those of the invention) adapted to hold a rubber band or the like provided on the outside of an at least substantially U-formed or V-formed bracket to secure objects held in the bracket.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Gates, to add barbs (17) to the exterior of the bracket of Thomas/the combination, in order to hold a rubber band or the like in position (e.g. a rope, strap, or the like)
Alternately, although Examiner maintains that Gates provides sufficient motivation to add the barbs, McClellan discloses the use of engagement structures (58, 60) on the exterior of a similar vehicle attached rod holder to secure a rubber strap/clamp in place over a hook portion of the rod holder and/or Hancock discloses the use of similar engagement structures/barbs (166, 168) on the side of a similar vehicle mounted hook/bracket to secure a strap (100) in position over an item held in the hook/bracket.
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