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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, e.g., "comprising", "said", and "characterized," should be avoided. The abstract should sufficiently describe the disclosure to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “Disclosed is,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “This disclosure describes,” etc. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claim(s) 1 - 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fuentes Domingo, WO 2020/123064.
Regarding claim 1, Fuentes Domingo discloses a luggage ring assembly, [suitable for attachment to a vehicle chassis], comprising: a luggage ring (11); and an engagement member (6) connected to the luggage ring (11); wherein the engagement member (6) comprises a nose (1) [suitable for insertion through, but not rotation within, a non-circular aperture]; and a waist (7) [suitable for rotation within the non-circular aperture]; [wherein in use, once the nose (1) passes through a non-circular aperture, rotation of the luggage ring assembly about the waist (7) within the non-circular aperture arranges the nose (1) in an orientation that prevents return of the nose (1) through the non-circular aperture].
Claim language set in brackets [] set forth above and below in this office action are considered by the examiner to be intended use that fails to further limit the structure of the claimed invention. Since the claimed invention is directed solely to that of the ring assembly, the prior art must only be capable of performing the functional recitations in order to be applicable, and in the instant case, the examiner maintains that the securing device disclosed by Fuentes Domingo (WO 2020/123064), is indeed capable of the intended use statements. Note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations.
Regarding claim 2, Fuentes Domingo discloses the luggage ring assembly of claim 1, wherein the nose (1) comprises a cross section (see figures 2 and 5) [that substantially describes the shape of the non-circular aperture].
Regarding claim 3, Fuentes Domingo discloses the luggage ring assembly of claim 1, wherein the nose (1) comprises an abutment surface (see curled portions separated by the slit 14) [arranged to resist return of the nose through a non-circular aperture].
Regarding claim 4, Fuentes Domingo discloses the luggage ring assembly of claim 1, wherein a rotation of 30° or greater of the luggage ring assembly about the waist (7) within the non-circular aperture (of the panel 12) is required to arrange the nose (1) in an orientation that prevents return of the nose through the non-circular aperture.
Regarding claim 5, Fuentes Domingo discloses the luggage ring assembly of claim 1, wherein the engagement member (6) further comprises an arresting surface (on an edge of 7) [arranged to allow location of the waist (7) within, but resist passage through, the non-circular aperture].
Regarding claim 6, Fuentes Domingo discloses the luggage ring assembly of claim 1, wherein the engagement member (6) further comprises at least one tensioning arm (4) arranged to, in use apply tension to the luggage ring assembly, [and optionally wherein the applied tension urges the nose (1) towards the non-circular aperture].
Regarding claim 7, Fuentes Domingo discloses the luggage ring assembly of claim 1, wherein the engagement member (6) comprises a rotation lock (2) [to lock the position of the waist within a non-circular aperture].
Regarding claim 8, Fuentes Domingo discloses the luggage ring assembly of claim 7, wherein the rotation lock (2) is a resilient member adjacent the waist (7).
Regarding claim 9, Fuentes Domingo discloses the luggage ring assembly of claim 7, [wherein the rotation lock (2) is arranged to interfere with a vertex of a non-circular aperture].
Regarding claim 10, Fuentes Domingo discloses the luggage ring assembly of claim 7, wherein the engagement member (6) is formed by **stamping or pressing**.
**Examiner notes that even though a product-by-process claim is limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698,227 USPQ 964,966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 11, Fuentes Domingo discloses the luggage ring assembly of claim 7, wherein the luggage ring (11) is rotatable relative to the engagement member (6).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for similar art cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROWLAND DO whose telephone number is (571)270-5737. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 - 7:00 PT.
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, Jason San can be reached at (571) 272-6531. 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.
/R.D./ Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/ SPE, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights