Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 4/24/24. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Chinese application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
3. The drawings are objected to because the reference numbers in Figure 1 are too small and unclear to be reproduced should the application issue to patent.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
4. Claim 1 is objected to because “wherein both ends of the first webbing are provided with an adjustable hook assembly and a second hook” should be rewritten as “wherein a first end of the first webbing is provided with an adjustable hook assembly and second end of the first webbing is provided with a second hook” in order to avoid confusion. The original language reads as if both ends have both features for a total of two adjustable hook assemblies and two second hooks.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ayers et al. (US 8,079,116 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Ayers discloses an extended hook structure for a roof crossbar (roof crossbar not currently being claimed in combination due to the functional language “for”), comprising: a first webbing (41) configured to be (i.e. capable of being) fixed to a roof crossbar, wherein both ends of the first webbing are provided with an adjustable hook assembly (33/32) and a second hook (36) configured to be (i.e. capable of being) hitched to a door frame of a target vehicle (neither the vehicle nor the door frame currently being claimed in combination), respectively, the adjustable hook assembly includes a lock catch (33) configured to be connected to one end of the first webbing, the other end of the lock catch is connected to a second webbing (38), and a tip end of the second webbing is provided with a first hook (35) configured to be (i.e. capable of being) hitched to a door frame of the target vehicle.
Regarding claim 2, Ayers discloses the extended hook structure for a roof crossbar according to claim 1, wherein the lock catch includes a fixing member (33) and a buckle hingedly mounted inside the fixing member, a channel is formed between the buckle and a side wall of the fixing member, and the one end of the first webbing is configured to enter from below the channel and pass out from above the channel. Such features are inherent to such “ratchet-type” mechanisms as shown and disclosed by Ayers.
Regarding claim 4, Ayers discloses the extended hook structure for a roof crossbar according to claim 1,wherein the adjustable hook assembly further includes a third webbing (32), both ends of the third webbing are configured to be connected to the first webbing (the first webbing is connected within the opening when cinched) and the second webbing (at 38), respectively, and the third webbing is located directly below the lock catch (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 6, Ayers discloses the extended hook structure for a roof crossbar according to claim 1, wherein the second hook and/or the first hook are configured to be detached. Nothing in Ayers would physically prevent a user from detaching the hooks from the straps.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayers et al. (US 8,079,116 B2) in view of Dingel (US 7,506,418 B2).
Regarding claim 2, Ayers discloses the extended hook structure for a roof crossbar according to claim 1, wherein the lock catch includes a fixing member (33) and a buckle hingedly mounted inside the fixing member, a channel is formed between the buckle and a side wall of the fixing member, and the one end of the first webbing is configured to enter from below the channel and pass out from above the channel. Such features are inherent to such “ratchet-type” mechanisms as shown and disclosed by Ayers. Should Applicant argue that such features are not inherent in Ayers, Dingel teaches lock catch (see Figures 2 and 4) like that of Ayers including a hinged buckle (70/72/74) that defines a channel with a sidewall (66) through which a webbing (76) is fed and clamped. Assuming that Ayers might lack such features, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have replaced the Ayers lock catch with the lock catch of Dingel as a simple substitution of one known lock catch for another in order to achieve the predictable result of strap length control.
Regarding claim 3, Ayers as modified above would include the extended hook structure for a roof crossbar according to claim 2, wherein the buckle includes a hinge member mounted inside the fixing member, as taught by Dingel (see hinge for 70), an unlocking block, as taught by Dingel (72), and a clamping block, as taught by Dingel (72), that are diverged by an obtuse angle are radially provided on an outer surface of the hinge member, as taught by Dingel (see Figures), a space between the clamping block and the side wall of the fixing member is defined as the channel, as taught by Dingel (see channel between 74 and 66), and a width of the channel is less than a thickness of the first webbing, as taught by Dingel.
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claim 5 is 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.
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art includes various vehicle-related strap hook systems, lock catch designs, and strap pads similar to Applicant’s claimed third webbing.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN MATTHEW LARSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8649. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-3pm. 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.
/JUSTIN M LARSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734 6/25/26
Prosecution Insights