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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dembowsky et al. (Patent No. 6,206,604) in view of Bertram et al. (US 2004/0086324 A1). Re: claim 1, Dembowsky teaches a system (Fig. 7) comprising: a multibracket (1, 2, 3, 5); and a surface (24), wherein the multibracket comprises a trough (Annotated Fig. 4 – trough) to be placed across the surface (24) and at least one spring clip (5) extending into (32, 33) the trough, wherein the surface (24) comprises at least one pin (23) extending distally (See Fig. 7) from the surface (24), the at least one pin (23) extending along a pin axis (Annotated Fig. 7 – pin axis), and the at least one pin comprising a pin head (22) at a distal end (Annotated Fig. 7 – distal end) thereof; wherein the multibracket is connected to the surface (See Fig. 7 – connected by the spring clip to the pin which is connected to the surface), such that the at least one pin (23) extends into the trough (Annotated Fig. 4 -trough) to cooperate with the at least one spring clip (5), such that a lip (32) on the at least one spring clip is biased against (Col. 2 – lines 57-63) the at least one pin (23) proximally to the pin head (22). Dembowsky fails to teach a vehicle frame.
However, Bertram teaches a vehicle frame (Fig. 1 – 4), wherein the vehicle frame (4) comprises at least one pin (8) extending distally from the vehicle frame (See Fig. 1) (See Also Paragraph [0028] – “which may be e.g. a removable cover [element 2] and, respectively, a frame of an automotive vehicle [element 4]”).
Dembowsky and Bertram are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of retaining devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Dembowsky’s casing (24) with those of Bertram’s vehicle frame (4) in order to provide the advantage of a direct connection from the vehicle frame to the bracket.
The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
PNG
media_image1.png
264
286
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
805
595
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re: claim 2, Dembowsky teaches wherein the at least one spring clip (5 – specifically 21 and 27) is biased axially (Annotated Fig. 7 – pin axis) and transversally (Annotated Fig. 7 – transverse axis) against the at least one pin.
It is noted that the guide portion (27) of the cited spring clip is in an axial and transverse direction with respect to the pin. The cited spring clip has a snapping means (Col. 2 – lines 22-24) of which the guide portion (27) and the female part (21) elastically deform for the pin head (22) to enter and be retained.
Re: claim 3, Dembowsky teaches wherein the lip (32) of the spring clip (5) is at a first end section (Fig. 4 – 26) of the spring clip (5).
Re: claim 4, Dembowsky teaches wherein the spring clip (5) is connected to the multibracket (1, 2, 3) at a spring clip connecting part (Fig. 4 - 20) on a support body (Fig. 5 – 29) via a second end section (28).
Re: claim 5, Dembowsky teaches wherein the spring clip connecting part (20) is positioned outside the trough (Annotated Fig. 4 – trough) (See Annotated Fig. 4).
Re: claim 6, Dembowsky teaches wherein the spring clip is arranged adjacent to (See Annotated Fig. 7) an edge of the trough (Annotated Fig. 7 – edge of trough).
It is noted by the examiner that the cited spring clip has a portion (32, 33) which extends into the trough, while the rest of the spring clip is adjacent to the annotated trough.
Re: claim 7, Dembowsky teaches wherein the pin head (22) is spherical (Col. 2 – lines 36-37 – “ball-shaped head 22”).
Re: claim 8, Dembowsky teaches wherein the at least one pin (23) is connected to the surface (24) through an integrated nut (Annotated Fig. 7 – nut). Dembowsky fails to teach a vehicle frame and a welded nut.
However, Bertram teaches a vehicle frame (4) (See Paragraph [0028] – “which may be e.g. a removable cover [element 2] and, respectively, a frame of an automotive vehicle [element 4]”). Bertram fails to teach a welded nut.
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to recognize that welding is known to be a permanent joining method and Dembowsky teaches a one-piece integrated construction of the pin and nut, where the pin is connected through the nut to the surface.
Re: claim 9, Dembowsky teaches wherein the multibracket (1, 2, 3, 5) comprises a central panel (Fig. 7 – 1), extending substantially parallel to the trough (See Annotated Fig. 7-2 Below).
PNG
media_image3.png
802
701
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re: claim 11, Dembowsky in view of Bertram teach a system according to claim 1. Dembowsky fails to teach a vehicle. Bertram discloses an automotive vehicle (Paragraph [0028] – frame of an automotive vehicle).
Re: claim 12, Dembowsky teaches a method for connecting a multibracket (1, 2, 3, 5) to a surface (24), wherein the multibracket comprises a trough (Annotated Fig. 4 – trough) to be placed across the surface (24) and at least one spring clip (5) extending into (32, 33) the trough, wherein the surface (24) comprises at least one pin (23) extending distally (See Fig. 7) from the surface (24), the at least one pin (23) extending along a pin axis (Annotated Fig. 7 – pin axis), and the at least one pin comprising a pin head (22) at a distal end (Annotated Fig. 7 – distal end) thereof; wherein the multibracket is connected to the surface (See Fig. 7 – connected by the spring clip to the pin which is connected to the surface), such that the at least one pin (23) extends into the trough (Annotated Fig. 4 -trough) to cooperate with the at least one spring clip (5), such that a lip (32) on the at least one spring clip is biased against (Col. 2 – lines 57-63) the at least one pin (23) proximally to the pin head (22). Dembowsky fails to teach a vehicle frame.
However, Bertram teaches a vehicle frame (Fig. 1 – 4), wherein the vehicle frame (4) comprises at least one pin (8) extending distally from the vehicle frame (See Fig. 1) (See Also Paragraph [0028] – “which may be e.g. a removable cover [element 2] and, respectively, a frame of an automotive vehicle [element 4]”).
Dembowsky and Bertram are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of retaining devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Dembowsky’s casing (24) with those of Bertram’s vehicle frame (4) in order to provide the advantage of a direct connection from the vehicle frame to the bracket.
The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Re: claim 13, Dembowsky teaches wherein the at least one spring clip (5 – specifically 21 and 27) is biased axially (Annotated Fig. 7 – pin axis) and transversally (Annotated Fig. 7 – transverse axis) against the at least one pin.
It is noted that the guide portion (27) of the cited spring clip is in an axial and transverse direction with respect to the pin. The cited spring clip has a snapping means (Col. 2 – lines 22-24) of which the guide portion (27) and the female part (21) elastically deform for the pin head (22) to enter and be retained.
Re: claim 14, Dembowsky teaches wherein the lip (32) of the spring clip (5) is at a first end section (Fig. 4 – 26) of the spring clip (5).
Re: claim 15, Dembowsky teaches wherein the spring clip (5) is connected to the multibracket (1, 2, 3) at a spring clip connecting part (Fig. 4 - 20) on a support body (Fig. 5 – 29) via a second end section (28).
Re: claim 16, Dembowsky teaches wherein the spring clip connecting part (20) is positioned outside the trough (Annotated Fig. 4 – trough) (See Annotated Fig. 4).
Re: claim 17, Dembowsky teaches wherein the spring clip is arranged adjacent to (See Annotated Fig. 7) an edge of the trough (Annotated Fig. 7 – edge of trough).
It is noted by the examiner that the cited spring clip has a portion (32, 33) which extends into the trough, while the rest of the spring clip is adjacent to the annotated trough.
Re: claim 18, Dembowsky teaches wherein the pin head (22) is spherical (Col. 2 – lines 36-37 – “ball-shaped head 22”).
Re: claim 19, Dembowsky teaches wherein the at least one pin (23) is connected to the surface (24) through an integrated nut (Annotated Fig. 7 – nut). Dembowsky fails to teach a vehicle frame and a welded nut.
However, Bertram teaches a vehicle frame (4) (See Paragraph [0028] – “which may be e.g. a removable cover [element 2] and, respectively, a frame of an automotive vehicle [element 4]”). Bertram fails to teach a welded nut.
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to recognize that welding is known to be a permanent joining method and Dembowsky teaches a one-piece integrated construction of the pin and nut, where the pin is connected through the nut to the surface.
Re: claim 20, Dembowsky teaches wherein the multibracket (1, 2, 3, 5) comprises a central panel (Fig. 7 – 1), extending substantially parallel to the trough (See Annotated Fig. 7-2).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dembowsky in view of Bertram in further view of Yang (CN 117012115 A).
Re: claim 10, Dembowsky and Bertram fail to teach wherein the central panel comprises a light-emitting diode (LED) sign arrangement.
However, Yang teaches wherein the panel (Fig. 3 – 3) comprises a light-emitting diode (LED) (“Here, the at least one light emitting element may be an LED, an OLED, a PLED, an electroluminescent element or an electroluminescent element or the like”) sign arrangement (100).
Dembowsky, Bertram, and Yang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of retaining devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Dembowsky’s cover with Yang’s luminous sign arrangement in order to provide the advantage of providing a visual indication of the apparatus.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schmitz et al. (Patent No. 8,585,340) and Ashmawi et al. (Patent No. 11,407,486) disclose various retainment structures on vehicles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP C ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-3421. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30 - 4:00 CT.
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, Amy R Weisberg can be reached at 5712705500. 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.
/PHILIP C ADAMS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights