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
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)(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 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent #6,425,508 to Cole (Cole). Cole discloses:
With Respect to Claim 23
A roof basket for mounting to the roof of a vehicle, the roof basket comprising: a first portion (front section 110) having a plurality of elongate first beams (e.g. any two or more of 116, 118, 126, and 128) spaced from each other and disposed substantially in parallel with each other (they are substantially horizontally parallel to each other), each of said first beams having a free end (noting e.g. 130, 132, 134, and 136); a second portion (rear section 210) having a plurality of elongate second beams (beams corresponding to those chosen as the first beams, e.g. 216, 218, 226, 228) spaced from each other and disposed substantially in parallel with each other (they are substantially horizontally parallel to each other), each of said second beams having a free end (e.g. 230, 232, 234, 236); each free end of the first beams mating with and being fastenable to a respective free end of the second beams to thereby join the first portion to the second portion (see, e.g. Col. 4 lines 40-45).
With Respect to Claim 24
The roof basket of Claim 23, wherein some of the free ends are male free ends and others of the free ends are female free ends, each male free end insertable into and being fastenable to a respective female free end (Col. 4 lines 22-39, Col. 5 lines 13-28).
Claims 34 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent #12,420,717 to Gustaveson (Gustaveson). Gustaveson discloses:
With Respect to Claim 34
A carrier for mounting to a roof of a vehicle, the carrier comprising: a body (114, 116, and related structure); a plurality of cross bar mounting members (clamping hardware 506, bracket 502, and related structure) including a first cross bar mounting member, a second cross bar mounting member spaced from the first cross bar mounting member in a transverse direction, a third cross bar mounting member spaced from the first cross bar mounting member in a longitudinal direction that is ninety degrees from the transverse direction, and a fourth cross bar mounting member spaced from the first cross bar mounting member in both the longitudinal and transverse directions (see, e.g. FIG. 3), each cross bar mounting member comprising: a clamp sled (802, FIGS. 8-9) affixable to the body in a selected one of a plurality of clamping positions, the clamping positions being longitudinally displaced from one another (noting slidable along 118); and a cross beam (502, 508) disposed below the clamp sled, wherein in use the clamp sled and the cross beam capture therebetween a crossbar (e.g. 406, FIG. 7B) of a roof rack of the vehicle, thereby fastening the carrier to the roof of the vehicle (capable of this use which is also the intended use).
With Respect to Claim 41
The carrier of Claim 34, wherein the carrier is a roof basket, the body of the carrier comprising a plurality of elongate spaced apart longitudinal beams and a plurality of elongate spaced apart transverse beams which intersect the longitudinal beams.
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 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #9,266,478 to Patel (Patel) in view of U.S. Patent #6,152,339 to Kreisler (Kreisler), or in view of U.S. Patent #6,581,813 to Bove (Bove) and U.S. Patent #6,152,339 to Kreisler (Kreisler), either alone or further in view of U.S. Patent #6,681,971 to Laverack (Laverack).
With Respect to Claim 15
Patel discloses a carrier for mounting to a roof of a vehicle comprising a plurality of cross bar mounting members (100) including a first cross bar mounting member, a second cross bar mounting member spaced from the first cross bar mounting member in a transverse direction, a third cross bar mounting member spaced from the first cross bar mounting member in a longitudinal direction that is ninety degrees from the transverse direction, and a fourth cross bar mounting member spaced from the first cross bar mounting member in both the longitudinal and transverse directions (see, e.g. FIG. 15 showing four cross bar mounting members as claimed), each cross bar mounting member comprising: an upper pad receptacle (receptacle area for receiving co-molded or removably mounted 109) downwardly extending from and integrally molded with the body of a first compound (noting disclosure that the first jaw body can be integrally molded with a portion of the sport equipment carrier 600); a cross beam (110) disposed below the upper pad receptacle, an upwardly facing surface of the cross beam disposed below the upper pad receptacle (see, e.g. FIGS. 1-6), means for fastening the cross beam to the body (130, 131); an upper pad (109) mounted in the upper pad receptacle, a lower pad (121) mounted on the upwardly facing surface of the cross beam, the upper and lower pads molded of a second polymer compound that is different than the first polymer compound as molded (), wherein in use the upper and lower pads capture therebetween a crossbar of a roof rack of the vehicle, thereby fastening the roof basket to the roof of the vehicle; but does not specify a particular material and so does not disclose that the first and second compounds are polymers, and does not specify the relative harness/softness of the materials and so does not explicitly disclose the upper and lower pads molded of a second polymer compound that as molded is softer than the first polymer compound as molded, and does not disclose that the carrier is a roof basket comprising a body.
However, Kreisler discloses forming a rooftop carrier out of molded plastic/polymer as one of several suitable materials for such a carrier, as well as the rooftop carrier attaching to the vehicle using a similar upper and lower clamping structure to that of Patel.
Bove discloses attaching a similar carrier to a roof using a similar clamping structure, the carrier being a rooftop basket comprising a body.
Laverack discloses forming a similar clamping structure with upper and lower pad receptacles for receiving pads (18) which are made of a resilient material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Kreisler, to form the carrier of Patel as a basket, in order to hold a variety of items and/or as a mere selection of an art appropriate carrier to use or a mere substitution of one art known carrier for another. It would also have been obvious to form the cross bar mounting members out of molded polymer/plastic compound that is harder than the compound of the load bar engaging surface, in order to provide a strong structure to securely clamp the carrier/basket to the vehicle crossbars while providing a softer load bearing surface to avoid damage to the crossbar and/or clamp structure, for the art known benefits of such polymer construction (e.g. lighter weight, lower cost), as a mere selection of an art known material and formation method to use, and/or as it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Alternately, to the degree that Kreisler attaches to a crossbar through a roof and has other details that differ from the Patel clamp structure, Bove’s disclosure provides motivation for and/or evidence of the obviousness of using a clamp similar to that of Patel on a roof basket.
Alternately, although Examiner maintains that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the Patel structure to include a pad receptacle and for it to be obvious to make the pad softer than the clamp jaw material, Laverack discloses forming a similar clamping structure with a receptacle/cavity to receive a removable/replaceable pad (18) which is a resilient material, which provides additional motivation for and/or evidence of the obviousness of this construction.
With Respect to Claim 16
The roof basket of Claim 15, wherein an upper surface of the lower pad is generally upwardly concave, and wherein a lower surface of the upper pad is generally downwardly concave (see, e.g. FIG. 4A).
With Respect to Claim 17
The roof basket of Claim 15, and as to the combination with Laverack wherein the upper and lower pads are molded of an elastomer (e.g. rubber).
As to the combination without Laverack, it is Examiner’s position that elastomers are a commonly known material and would be obvious to use as the material for the upper and lower pads for the art known benefits of elastomers in general or of a particular elastomer, and/or as it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #9,266,478 to Patel (Patel) in view of U.S. Patent #6,152,339 to Kreisler (Kreisler), or in view of U.S. Patent #6,581,813 to Bove (Bove) and U.S. Patent #6,152,339 to Kreisler (Kreisler), either alone or further in view of U.S. Patent #6,681,971 to Laverack (Laverack) as applied to claim 15 above, either alone or further in view of U.S. Patent #6,425,508 to Cole (Cole) and U.S. Patent #12,420,717 to Gustaveson (Gustaveson).
With Respect to Claim 22
The roof basket of Claim 15, but does not disclose wherein the body of the roof basket comprises first, second, third and fourth portions molded separately from each other and subsequently joined to each other, each of the first, second, third and fourth cross bar mounting members affixing a respective portion of the body to the vehicle.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to form the body of the roof basket out of four portions (e.g. four corner portions) molded separately and subsequently joined, in order to allow for separation for repair/replacement/cleaning/storage, and/or as doing so constitutes at most merely making separable which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04).
Alternately, Cole discloses forming a similar roof basket out of separable front and rear portions to allow for separation and adding an extension between those portions to adjust the size of the rack; Gustaveson discloses forming a similar roof basket out of separable left and right portions to allow for separation and adding an extension between those portions to adjust the size of the rack. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Cole and Gustaveson, to form the basket of the combination out of separable left and right and separable forward and rear portions (i.e. four separable portions total) in order to allow for adjustment of the size of the rack in either direction and/or as doing so constitutes at most merely making adjustable and/or making separable which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04).
Claims 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #6,425,508 to Cole (Cole) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent #12, 420, 717 to Gustaveson (Gustaveson).
With Respect to Claim 25
The roof basket of Claim 23, but does not disclose wherein the roof basket further comprises third and fourth portions, each of the first, second, third and fourth portions having elongate, spaced-apart, substantially parallel longitudinal beams and having elongate, spaced-apart, substantially parallel transverse beams that are joined to and intersect the longitudinal beams, each of the beams having a free end; free ends of the longitudinal beams of the first portion being fastenable to respective free ends of the longitudinal beams of the second portion, free ends of the transverse beams of the first portion being fastenable to respective free ends of the transverse beams of the third portion, free ends of the transverse beams of the second portion being fastenable to respective free ends of the transverse beams of the fourth portion, and free ends of the longitudinal beams of the third portion being fastenable to respective free ends of the longitudinal beams of the fourth portion.
However, Gustaveson discloses forming a similar roof rack that is expandable in the transverse direction in order to allow for adjustment of the size of the rack.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Gustaveson, to separate the left and right sides of the rack (10) of Cole using the same method used by Cole, in order to allow for adjustable connection between the left and right sides to allow for adjustment of the size of the rack to fit differently sized vehicles and/or cargo, to allow for separation of the left and right sides for ease of transport/storage, and/or as doing so constitutes at most merely making adjustable which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04) or a mere duplication of parts (i.e. it merely duplicates the male/female attachment mechanisms on the longitudinal beams onto the transverse beams). With this modification, all of the limitations of the claims are met. For clarity, the combination encompasses also adding inner bars (110) similar to Gustaveson in order to reduce the total number of male/female connector pairs and simplify construction as well as construction and deconstruction of the rack.
With Respect to Claim 26
A kit for assembling a roof basket for a vehicle, the kit comprising: a first corner portion, a second corner portion directly joinable to the first corner portion, a third corner portion directly joinable to the second corner portion, and a fourth corner portion directly joinable to at least one of the first corner portion and the third corner portion, the second corner portion disposed transversely of the first corner portion, the third corner portion disposed longitudinally of the second corner portion, and the fourth corner portion disposed transversely of the third corner portion and longitudinally of the second corner portion (the corners of the front and rear rack sections of Cole, each separated into a left and right side section, form four corners as claimed); a first longitudinal expansion portion and a second longitudinal expansion portion (expansion section 310, also similarly obviously modified to allow for transverse expansion per Gustaveson, will include left and right portions which are first and second longitudinal expansion portions), the first longitudinal expansion portion optionally placed between the first corner portion and the third corner portion to join the first corner portion to the third corner portion, the second longitudinal expansion portion optionally placed between the second corner portion and the fourth corner portion; whereby, when the first and second longitudinal expansion portions are used, an overall length of the assembled roof basket is increased (per Cole, see e.g. FIG. 2 and description).
With Respect to Claim 27
The kit of Claim 26, further comprising: a first transverse expansion portion and a second transverse expansion portion, the first transverse expansion portion optionally placed between the first corner portion and the second corner portion to join the first corner portion to the second corner portion, and second transverse expansion portion optionally placed between the third corner portion and the fourth corner portion to join the third corner portion to the fourth corner portion; whereby, when the first and second transverse expansion portions are used, an overall width of the assembled roof basket is increased (the addition of first and second transverse expansion portions is obvious per Gustaveson’s disclosure of such, noting 202, FIGS. 2-3 and description).
For clarity, it is Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious in view of Gustaveson to add transverse expansion portions similar to those of Gustaveson (e.g. fairing connections designed to telescope and mate with each respective corner) or alternately to add expansion portions similar to that of Cole but in the transverse direction, with mating male/female connectors to mate with each respective corner.
With Respect to Claim 28
The kit of Claim 27, but does not disclose further comprising a center expansion portion, the center expansion portion used when both the longitudinal expansion portions and the transverse expansion portions are used to assemble the roof basket, the center expansion portion in that instance placed in a center between the first longitudinal expansion portion and the second longitudinal expansion portion and between the first transverse expansion portion and the second transverse expansion portion to join the first longitudinal expansion portion to the second longitudinal expansion portion and to join the first transverse expansion portion to the second transverse expansion portion, whereby, when the longitudinal expansion portions, the transverse expansion portions and the center expansion portion are used, both an overall length and an overall width of the assembled roof basket is increased.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to also include a center expansion portion as claimed, in order to allow for increasing both the width and the length while also having a central structure to support items in the center of the basket, and/or as doing so is “obvious to try” as merely selecting from a limited number of art known alternatives (i.e. either having a roof basket with an opening in the center, providing an additional set of longitudinal extension sized to fill the center when the transversal extensions are used, providing an additional set of transversal extensions sized to fill the center when the longitudinal extensions are also used, or providing a separate center section to attach to the longitudinal and transversal extensions when both are in use)
With Respect to Claim 29
A kit for assembling a roof basket for affixation to a vehicle, the kit comprising: a first corner portion, a second corner portion directly joinable to the first corner portion, a third corner portion directly joinable to the second corner portion, and a fourth corner portion directly joinable to at least one of the first corner portion and the third corner portion, the second corner portion disposed transversely of the first corner portion, the third corner portion disposed longitudinally of the second corner portion, and the fourth corner portion disposed transversely of the third corner portion and longitudinally of the second corner portion (there are four corner portions as claimed per Cole’s disclosure of separable front and rear portions and Gustaveson’s disclosure of separable left and right portions); and a first transverse expansion portion and a second transverse expansion portion (202 per Gustaveson or an extension portion more similar to the bottom of Cole per Cole’s disclosure of extension portions having multiple longitudinal and transverse members), the first transverse expansion portion optionally placed between the first corner portion and the second corner portion to join the first corner portion to the second corner portion, and the second transverse expansion portion optionally placed between the third corner portion and the fourth corner portion to join the third corner portion to the fourth corner portion; whereby, when the first and second transverse expansion portions are used, an overall width of the assembled roof basket is increased (per Gustaveson, and/or see the rejection of claim 27 above for details).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #6,425,508 to Cole (Cole) in view of U.S. Patent #12, 420, 717 to Gustaveson (Gustaveson) as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of DE 4314889 to Probets (Probets) and/or DE 2933915 to Mittelhaeuser (Mittelhaeuser).
With Respect to Claim 30
The kit of Claim 29, and Gustaveson discloses a wind deflector (fairing 2602a/b), having a left portion joinable to the first corner portion; a right portion of the wind deflector directly joinable to the left portion of the wind deflector and joinable to the second corner portion and a central portion of the wind deflector placed between the left portion of the wind deflector and the right portion of the wind deflector to join together the left and right portions of the wind deflector, but does not disclose that the central portion is optionally placed between the left and right portions such that the central portion of the wind deflector is used to assemble the roof basket when the first and second transverse expansion portions are used to assemble the roof basket.
However, Probets discloses forming a similar wind deflector in multiple parts with male/female connectors slidably guided together and connected in order to allow for adjustment of the width of the deflector to various vehicle widths.
Mittelhauser discloses forming a wind deflector to be extended using telescopic sections to cover different loads to be carried (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Gustaveson and/or either Probets or Mittelhaeuser to add a wind deflector to the roof rack of Cole/the combination. It would further have been obvious in view of Probets’ disclosure of making a wind deflector adjustable in width using telescoping sections and the disclosure of Cole to adjust the width of roof rack parts using removable telescoping sections, to make the wind deflector of the combination adjustable via the addition/removal of telescoping extension sections; or alternately the disclosure of Mittelhaeuser to use telescopic sections to extend a deflector provides sufficient motivation to use a telescopic extension section optionally added or removed to extend the deflector, particular in view of Cole’s disclosure of this type of extension construction to adjust a size of a portion of a roof rack. Alternately, Mittelhaeuser’s disclosure of telescoping sections and Probets’ disclosure of similar slidably guided male/female connectors similar to that of Cole provide additional motivation for and/or evidence of the obviousness of an extension section having telescoping/slidably guided male/female connectors to adjust width, similar to Cole’s use of that type of construction/adjustment structure for other roof rack parts.
Claims 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #6,425,508 to Cole (Cole) in view of U.S. Patent #12,420,717 to Gustaveson (Gustaveson) and U.S. Patent #6,152,339 to Kreisler (Kreisler), either alone or further in view of official notice.
With Respect to Claim 31
Cole in view of Gustaveson (see the rejection of claim 29 above for details of the combination) discloses a kit for assembling a roof basket of a vehicle, comprising: a first corner portion, a second corner portion directly joinable to the first corner portion, a third corner portion directly joinable to the second corner portion, and a fourth corner portion directly joinable to the first corner portion and the third corner portion, wherein assembly of the first, second, third and fourth corner portions will create a complete assembled roof basket, and Cole discloses that the rack components may be made of any suitable material with metal/steel being only one provided example; but does not disclose wherein the first, second, third and fourth corner portions are separately injection-molded of a polymer.
However, Kreisler discloses that a similar roof rack basket can be molded in part or entirety out of plastic (which is a polymer) as an alternative to forming it from metal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Kreisler, to form the corner portions of Cole/the combination out of a polymer instead of metal, for the art known benefits of such construction (e.g. lighter weight, lower cost), as a mere substitution of one art known material for another, and/or as it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
As to the injection-molded, It is Examiner’s position that this is a process step in an apparatus claim, and so does not structurally distinguish over other methods of formation. Alternately Examiner takes official notice that injection molding is an art known method of forming plastic parts and so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to injection mold the corner portions for the art known benefits of this formation method and/or as a mere selection of an art appropriate formation method to use.
With Respect to Claim 32
The kit of Claim 31, wherein each of the first, second, third and fourth corner portions is comprised of a plurality of longitudinal beams spaced apart from each other and a plurality of transverse beams spaced apart from each other, disposed at an angle to the longitudinal beams, and intersecting the longitudinal beams, each of the beams having a free end, the free ends of each corner portion connectable to respective free ends of adjacent corner portions (beams connected in this fashion per Cole or per Cole and Gustaveson).
With Respect to Claim 33
The kit of Claim 31, wherein ones of the free ends are female and remaining ones of the free ends are male and are insertable into the female free ends (per Cole).
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #12,420,717 to Gustaveson (Gustaveson) as applied to claim 34 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent #6,681,971 to Laverack (Laverack) in view of U.S. Patent #6,152,339 to Kreisler (Kreisler).
With Respect to Claim 35
The carrier of Claim 34, wherein the clamp sled further comprises a lower surface, but does not disclose an upper pad receptacle formed on the lower surface of the clamp sled, the clamp sled being molded of a first polymer compound, an upper pad mounted in the upper pad receptacle, the upper pad molded of a second polymer compound that as molded is softer than the first polymer compound as molded, wherein in use the upper pad and the cross beam capture therebetween the crossbar.
However, Laverack discloses forming a similar clamping structure for attaching a carrier to a roof rack comprising a clamp sled (noting upper jaw) including an upper pad receptacle (noting opening for fitting member(s) 18, see e.g. FIG. 13) formed on the lower surface of the clamp sled (see, e.g. FIG. 13),
the clamp sled being molded of a first polymer compound, an upper pad (18) mounted in the upper pad receptacle, the upper pad molded of a second polymer compound that as molded is softer than the first polymer compound as molded (noting disclosure that it is resilient, it is Examiner’s position that this relative hardness is inherent or clearly obvious), wherein in use the upper pad and the cross beam capture therebetween the crossbar (capable of this use which is also the intended use).
Kreisler discloses that a similar roof rack structure can have parts molded in part or entirety out of plastic (which is a polymer). It is noted that Kreisler also discloses a similar clamp sled with a downwardly extending lower portion for engaging the top of a crossbar and a second jaw portion for engaging the bottom of the crossbar, similar to the Laverack structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Laverack, to form the clamp sled of Gustaveson with an upper jaw including an upper pad receptacle and an upper pad as taught by Laverack/as claimed, in order to reduce wear and tear on the crossbars and/or the bottom of the carrier/basket. Alternately, Kreisler provides additional evidence of the obviousness of and/or motivation for this modification.
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Kreisler, to mold the clamp structures of the combination out of a plastic/polymer compound that is harder than the resilient compound of the fitting members/pads (18), in order to provide a strong structure to securely clamp the carrier/basket to the vehicle crossbars, for the art known benefits of such construction (e.g. lighter weight, lower cost), as a mere selection of an art known material and formation method to use, and/or as it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 and 42-49 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: as to claim 1, U.S. Patent Publication #2018/0215322 discloses a somewhat similar connector including a male (68) and female (60) fastening structure and a key (bolt) for connecting them together, but lacks many of the details, particularly of the shape of the key and the portions of the male and female members that it interfits with and there is insufficient motivation based on the current art of record to modify the ‘322 publication to arrive at the claimed invention. As to claim 42, U.S. Patent #3,550,668 discloses a similar fastening system comprising a nut having an outer surface opposed to the threaded bore and a nut insert (15) formed of a second material that is softer than the first material, an insert cavity radially inwardly extending from the outer surface of the nut to the threaded bore, the nut insert inserted into the insert cavity, an end of the nut insert radially inwardly extending beyond the threaded bore toward the axis so as to interfere with the bolt shaft, threads of the bolt shaft cutting into the end of the nut insert (noting shearing at 15a), the end of the nut insert thereby providing resistance to the bolt shaft rotating around the axis, but is not used to attach a body and a component together as claimed (e.g. the head of the bolt is not disposed adjacent the first surface of the body, the bolt shaft inserted through the body bolt hole and extending from the second surface, the nut having a flanged head to cooperate with the nut cavity, etc.), and there is insufficient motivation to modify this structure to arrive at the claimed invention.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 18-21 and 36-40 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: as to claim 18, U.S. Patent #11,400,865 discloses a similar means for fastening a cross beam of a clamp to a similar body, but is very structurally different from the clamp of Patel and also is attached to a movable element rather than integrally formed, and so there is insufficient motivation to modify the structure of Patel/the combination or to modify the ‘865 structure to arrive at the structure recited in claim 18; as to claim 36, Gustaveson does not disclose a downwardly facing clamp sled attachment surface of the carrier body and there is insufficient motivation based on the current prior art of record to add such a surface including a plurality of indexing walls and an upper surface of the clamp sled having formed thereon a plurality of indexing walls as claimed; as to claim 40, there is insufficient motivation based on the current art of record to add a clamp sled retainer as recited in claim 40 to the structure of Gustaveson.
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
Prosecution Insights