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 § 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 19 and 20 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.
Claims recites the limitation "the pair of light bar mounting brackets" in lines 7 and 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of examination, the claim is interpreted as reciting that
--mounting a vehicle accessory between distal ends of the second arms of the accessory mounting brackets --
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamay (US 2017/0021758) in view of Trotter (US 2013/0335987) and further in view of Wilkins (US 2017/0334347).
Regarding claim 1. Tamay discloses an accessory mounting bracket (22, see Fig. 1, Para. 0013) configured for attachment to a vehicle (14, see Fig. 2, Para. 0013), comprising: a first arm (first linkage 26, see Fig. 1, Para. 0013) having a proximal end (26A) and a distal end (26B); a connectors (e.g. screws, bolts, see Fig. 1, Para. 0014) disposed at the proximal end (26A) of the first arm and configured to secure the first arm to the vehicle; a second arm (second linkage 30, see Fig. 1, Para. 0013) having a proximal end (30A) and a distal end (30B); a pivot (28A, see Fig. 1, Para. 0015) connecting the proximal end of the second arm to the distal end of the first arm; and wherein the distal end of the second arm is configured for attachment of a vehicle accessory (light fixture 10, see Fig. 1, Para. 0013-0015).
However, Tamay is silent with respect to the mounting bracket is configured for attachment to a recovery hook of a vehicle and the connector comprising clamping mechanism.
Trotter teaches a trailer light extension (100, see Fig. 1, Para. 0012, 0014) configured to secure to a vehicle (e.g. the trailer light extension, see 0014) including a first arm (a telescoping receiving arm 160, see Fig. 1, Para. 0013) and a second arm (telescoping vertical stem 130, see Fig. 1, Para. 0013); wherein the first arm includes a connector comprising clamping mechanism (clamp 174, see Fig. 1, Para. 0015), wherein an upright u-shaped clamp (174) and the securing knob (176) can receive and removably secure a portion of the vehicle or trailer attached to the trailer light extension (100).
Wilkins discloses a vehicle accessory system (100, see Fig. 1, Para. 0018), comprising: a vehicle (10, see Figs. 1 and 2, Para. 0018) having a recovery hooks (20, see Figs. 2 and 6, Para. 0018 and 0024); a pair of accessory mounting brackets (brackets 200, see Figs. 2 and 4, Para. 0019), each secured to a corresponding one of the recovery hooks (20, see Para. 0019).
Therefore, in view of Trotter and Wilkins, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tamay by configuring the mounting bracket for attachment to a vehicle recovery hook and by replacing Tamay’s connector with the clamping mechanism in order to easily and removably secure the vehicle accessory/light fixture as taught by Trotter and Wilkins, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, substituting Schmidt’s clamping mechanism for Trotter’s connector would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application.
Regarding claims 2 and 3. Tamay further discloses the pivot (28, see Fig. 1, Para. 0015-0016) comprises a fastener (bolt, see Para. 0015) extending through an aperture in the first arm and a corresponding aperture in the second arm.
However, Tamay is silent with respect to including a spacer; wherein the spacer comprises a cylindrical post having a central bore through which the fastener extends.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tamay by including a spacer including cylindrical post for smooth rotation as a matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, including a spacer would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application.
Regarding claims 4 and 5. The teachings of Tamay have been discussed above.
However, Tamay fails to disclose or fairly suggest the clamping mechanism comprises a clamp having an upper metal plate assembly having a lower cutout shaped to conform to a cross-sectional geometry of a particular recovery hook; wherein the clamp includes a pair of threaded posts.
Trotter further teaches the upright u-shaped clamp (174) and the securing knob (176) can receive and removably secure a portion of the vehicle or trailer attached to the trailer light extension (100); wherein the clamp includes a pair of threaded posts (knob 176, see Fig. 1, Para. 0015).
Wilkins further discloses the clamping mechanism (channel 208/218, see Figs. 2-4, Para. 0024-0025 and 0028) includes a cutout that conforms to a cross-sectional geometry of the recovery hooks of the corresponding vehicle model.
Therefore, in view of Trotter and Wilkins, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tamay by replacing the connector with the clamping mechanism that includes a cutout that conforms to a cross-sectional geometry of the recovery hooks of the corresponding vehicle model in order to easily and removably secure the vehicle accessory/light fixture as taught by Trotter and Wilkins thereby the light bar can be attached to the front portion of the vehicle, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007).
Regarding claim 6. Tamay further discloses the first arm (first linkage 26, see Fig. 1, Para. 0013) comprises a plurality of apertures (42, see Fig. 1, Para. 0014) at the proximal end to permit selective positioning of the clamping mechanism (e.g. Screws, bolts, or other connectors may be threaded or otherwise positioned through the orifices 42 and mating orifices or slots (not shown) on the vehicle).
Regarding claim 7. Tamay further discloses the first arm (first linkage 26, see Fig. 1, Para. 0013) and second arm (second linkage 30, see Fig. 1, Para. 0013) are connected by the pivot such that the second arm is rotatable relative to the first arm to vary an angle of orientation of the vehicle accessory (see Fig. 4, Para. 0022).
Regarding claim 8. The teachings of Tamay have been discussed above.
However, Tamay fails to disclose or fairly suggest the first arm includes an extended portion projecting laterally outward and a plurality of acorn nuts mounted along an outer edge of the extended portion to define a non-slip step surface.
Wilkins further discloses the bracket (200) includes one or more blocking elements (212) that is secured by a plurality of acorn nuts (216, see Fig. 3, Para. 0026).
Therefore, in view of Wilkins, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marchese by forming the accessory mounting bracket to includes plurality of acorn nuts in order to provide non-slip step surface for safe illumination, since selecting a given non-slip step surface design would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application.
Regarding claims 9 and 10. Tamay further discloses an aperture for receiving a connector (28A, see Fig. 1) in the first arm and a corresponding aperture in the second arm.
However, Tamay is silent with respect to the aperture in the first arm is elongated; wherein the corresponding aperture in the second arm is elongated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tamay by forming the aperture in the first arm and the corresponding aperture in the second arm to be elongated as a matter of choosing one of well-known aperture shapes, since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality in operation of the device, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). It appears that the disclosed device would perform equally well shaped as disclosed by Tamay.
Regarding claim 11. Tamay further discloses the second arm (second linkage 30, see Fig. 1, Para. 0013) has one or more apertures at the distal end for receiving fasteners (connector 28B, see Fig. 1, Para. 0016) to secure the vehicle accessory (light mount 46, Para. 0016) to the second arm.
Regarding claim 12. The teachings of Tamay have been discussed above.
However, Tamay fails to disclose or fairly suggest the clamping mechanism is oriented upwardly relative to the first arm when installed.
Trotter further teaches the upright u-shaped clamp (174) and the securing knob (176) can receive and removably secure a portion of the vehicle or trailer attached to the trailer light extension (100).
Therefore, in view of Trotter, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tamay by replacing the connector with the clamping mechanism that oriented upwardly relative to the first arm in order to easily and removably secure the vehicle accessory/light fixture as taught by Trotter, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007).
Claims 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marchese (US 2017/0120805) in view of Trotter and further in view of Wilkins.
Regarding claims 13 and 15. Marchese discloses a vehicle accessory system (300, see Figs. 1 10, and 12), comprising: a pair of accessory mounting brackets (brackets 210 and 315), each secured to a vehicle (102, see Para. 0048 and 0054), each of the pair of accessory mounting brackets comprising: a first arm (vehicle mounting bracket 210, see Fig. 12, Para. 0056) having a proximal end and a distal end, a connector (mounting fastener 215, see Fig. 3, Para. 0035, 0036) disposed at the proximal end of the first arm and configured to secure the first arm to the vehicle (see Para. 0036), a second arm (brackets 315, see Fig. 12, Para. 0054) having a proximal end and a distal end, a pivot connecting (mechanically joins or affixes two or more objects together, see Figs. 12-14, Para. 0036) the proximal end of the second arm to the distal end of the first arm, and wherein the distal end of the second arm is configured for attachment of an auxiliary lighting fixture (305, see Figs. 10 and 12, Para. 0054); and a vehicle accessory (e.g. the four lights 305, see Fig. 10, Para. 0048) mounted between the distal ends of the respective second arms of the pair of accessory mounting brackets.
Marchese further discloses the first arm of each accessory mounting bracket has a curved profile (see Fig. 8) configured to conform to the roof of the vehicle and the connector comprising clamping mechanism.
However, Marchese does not explicitly teacher that the vehicle having a pair of front recovery hooks and the each accessory mounting brackets secured to a corresponding one of the recovery hooks; wherein the first arm is configured to conform to front fascia of the vehicle.
Trotter teaches a trailer light extension (100, see Fig. 1, Para. 0012 and 0014) configured to secure to a vehicle (e.g. the trailer light extension, see 0014) including a first arm (a telescoping receiving arm 160, see Fig. 1, Para. 0013) and a second arm (telescoping vertical stem 130, see Fig. 1, Para. 0013); wherein the first arm includes a connector comprising clamping mechanism (clamp 174, see Fig. 1, Para. 0015), wherein an upright u-shaped clamp (174) and the securing knob (176) can receive and removably secure a portion of the vehicle or trailer attached to the trailer light extension (100).
Wilkins discloses a vehicle accessory system (100, see Fig. 1, Para. 0018), comprising: a vehicle (10, see Figs. 1 and 2, Para. 0018) having a pair of front recovery hooks (20, see Figs. 2 and 6, Para. 0018 and 0024); a pair of accessory mounting brackets (brackets 200 and mounting platform 400, see Figs. 2 and 4, Para. 0019), each secured to a corresponding one of the recovery hooks (20, see Para. 0019), each of the pair of accessory mounting brackets comprising: a first arm (e.g. arm 220, see Fig. 4, Para. 0029) having a proximal end and a distal end, a clamping mechanism (channel 208/218, see Figs. 2-4, Para. 0024-0025 and 0028) disposed at the proximal end of the first arm and configured to secure the first arm to the recovery hook (20, see Fig. 6, Para. 0028, 0029) of the vehicle, a second arm (mounting platform 400 includes struts 422 on which a light bar 40 can be attached, see Figs. 2 and 4; Para. 0020, 0024, 0031) having a proximal end and a distal end, and wherein the distal end of the second arm is configured for attachment of an auxiliary lighting fixture (light bar 40, see Fig. 2, Para. 0020); and a vehicle accessory (an accessory such as winch 30) mounted between the distal ends of the respective second arms of the pair of accessory mounting brackets.
Therefore, in view of Trotter and Wilkins, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marchese by configuring the mounting bracket for attachment to a vehicle recovery hook and by replacing the connector with the clamping mechanism in order to easily and removably secure the vehicle accessory/light fixture as taught by Trotter and Wilkins thereby the light bar can be attached to the front portion of the vehicle, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, substituting Marchese’s attachment mechanism for Trotter’s connector to provide easily mountable front light bar would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application.
Regarding claim 14. Marchese further discloses each pivot is configured to provide angular adjustment of the vehicle accessory relative to the vehicle (see Fig. 15, Para. 0048 and 0051).
Regarding claim 16. The teachings of Marchese have been discussed above.
However, Marchese fails to disclose or fairly suggest each accessory mounting bracket includes a non-slip step surface.
Wilkins further discloses the bracket (200) includes one or more blocking elements (212) that is secured by a plurality of acorn nuts (216, see Fig. 3, Para. 0026).
Therefore, in view of Wilkins, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marchese by forming the accessory mounting bracket to includes plurality of acorn nuts in order to provide non-slip step surface for safe illumination, since selecting a given non-slip step surface design would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application.
Regarding claim 17. Marchese further discloses the vehicle accessory is a light bar.
Regarding claim 18. The teachings of Marchese have been discussed above.
However, Marchese fails to disclose or fairly suggest the clamping mechanism of each accessory mounting bracket comprises a clamp with an upper plate assembly having a vehicle-specific lower cutout that conforms to a cross-sectional geometry of the recovery hooks of the corresponding vehicle model.
Trotter further teaches the upright u-shaped clamp (174) and the securing knob (176) can receive and removably secure a portion of the vehicle or trailer attached to the trailer light extension (100).
Wilkins further discloses the clamping mechanism (channel 208/218, see Figs. 2-4, Para. 0024-0025 and 0028) includes a cutout that conforms to a cross-sectional geometry of the recovery hooks of the corresponding vehicle model.
Therefore, in view of Trotter and Wilkins, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marchese by replacing the connector with the clamping mechanism that includes a cutout that conforms to a cross-sectional geometry of the recovery hooks of the corresponding vehicle model in order to easily and removably secure the vehicle accessory/light fixture as taught by Trotter and Wilkins thereby the light bar can be attached to the front portion of the vehicle, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007).
Regarding claims 19 and 20 (as best understood). Marchese discloses a method of installing a vehicle accessory on a vehicle (102, see Para. 0048 and 0054), comprising: providing a pair of accessory mounting brackets (brackets 210 and 315), each having a first arm (vehicle mounting bracket 210, see Fig. 12, Para. 0056), a second arm (brackets 315, see Fig. 12, Para. 0054), a pivot (mechanically joins or affixes two or more objects together, see Figs. 12-14, Para. 0036) interconnecting the first and second arms, and a connector (mounting fastener 215, see Fig. 3, Para. 0035 and 0036) at a proximal end of the first arm; mounting a vehicle accessory (e.g. light bar 305) between distal ends of the second arms of the pair of light bar mounting brackets; and adjusting the pivot of each accessory mounting bracket to orient the vehicle accessory at a desired angle relative to the vehicle (see Fig. 15, Para. 0048 and 0051).
However, Marchese does not explicitly teacher the method of installing a vehicle accessory on a vehicle having front recovery hooks, the connector comprising clamping mechanism, securing each clamping mechanism to a respective recovery hook of the vehicle; wherein the clamping mechanism comprises a clamp with an upper plate assembly having a vehicle-specific lower cutout that conforms to a cross-sectional geometry of the recovery hooks of the corresponding vehicle model, as recited in claim 20.
Trotter teaches a trailer light extension (100, see Fig. 1, Para. 0012, 0014) configured to secure to a vehicle (e.g. the trailer light extension, see 0014) including a first arm (a telescoping receiving arm 160, see Fig. 1, Para. 0013) and a second arm (telescoping vertical stem 130, see Fig. 1, Para. 0013); wherein the first arm includes a connector comprising clamping mechanism (clamp 174, see Fig. 1, Para. 0015), wherein an upright u-shaped clamp (174) and the securing knob (176) can receive and removably secure a portion of the vehicle or trailer attached to the trailer light extension (100).
Wilkins discloses a vehicle accessory system (100, see Fig. 1, Para. 0018), comprising: a vehicle (10, see Figs. 1 and 2, Para. 0018) having a pair of front recovery hooks (20, see Figs. 2 and 6, Para. 0018 and 0024); a pair of accessory mounting brackets (brackets 200 and mounting platform 400, see Figs. 2 and 4, Para. 0019), each secured to a corresponding one of the recovery hooks (20, see Para. 0019), each of the pair of accessory mounting brackets comprising: a first arm (e.g. arm 220, see Fig. 4, Para. 0029) having a proximal end and a distal end, a clamping mechanism (channel 208/218, see Figs. 2-4, Para. 0024-0025 and 0028) disposed at the proximal end of the first arm and configured to secure the first arm to the recovery hook (20, see Fig. 6, Para. 0028, 0029) of the vehicle, a second arm (mounting platform 400 includes struts 422 on which a light bar 40 can be attached, see Figs. 2, 4, Para. 0020, 0024, 0031) having a proximal end and a distal end, and wherein the distal end of the second arm is configured for attachment of an auxiliary lighting fixture (light bar 40, see Fig. 2, Para. 0020); and a vehicle accessory (an accessory such as winch 30) mounted between the distal ends of the respective second arms of the pair of accessory mounting brackets.
Therefore, in view of Trotter and Wilkins, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marchese by configuring the mounting bracket for attachment to a vehicle recovery hook and by replacing the connector with the clamping mechanism in order to easily and removably secure the vehicle accessory/light fixture as taught by Trotter and Wilkins thereby the light bar can be attached to the front portion of the vehicle, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, substituting Marchese’s attachment mechanism for Trotter’s connector to provide easily mountable front light bar would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Schmidt (US 5,845,983) teaches a vehicle driving light mounting system configured for attachment to a recovery hook (34, see Fig. 1) and a clamping mechanism (14/114/119, see Figs. 1 and 2) configured to secure the recovery hook of the vehicle (see Col. 2; lines 12-67); THOMPSON (US 1,611,392 A) discloses an adjustable lamp including a bracket and a clamp to secure to the lamp to the steering knuckle arm; and Wymore et al. (US 2018/0118091) discloses an adjustable mounting device is provided comprising a base mount assembly including a first base mount and a second base mount pivotally coupled to each other.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tsion Tumebo whose telephone number is 571-270-1668. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 am to 4:00 pm, Monday thru Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jong-Suk (James) Lee can be reached on (571)272-7044. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/TSION TUMEBO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights