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
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an
application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 18, 19, 21, 24, 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Whitten (US 6,666,498).
In re claim 18, Whitten discloses a method of concealing a bulkhead of a vehicle, comprising steps of: providing a false bulkhead assembly (10) including a frame (20) and a cover (16, 18), wherein the cover is made of a flexible and fibrous material (fiberglass or equivalent material, see column 3, lines 58-61); engaging the frame with an attachment portion (portion of hinges 64 attached to vehicle) of the vehicle; and hiding an entire rear region (rear doors 60) of the vehicle with the cover (as shown in Figures 1 and 6), wherein the cover is located a distance away from the region of the vehicle (as shown in Figure 1), by the attachment portion, to hide drainage of precipitation that travels between the cover and the region of the vehicle. The Examiner notes that hinges 64 do not provide a watertight seal at the top and the gap between upper panels 20 would also allow drainage from the roof of the vehicle such that it is hidden behind the cover. The Examiner notes that “an entire rear region” is vague and can be broadly interpreted to mean any chosen rear region (such as the doors or even a smaller “region” of the doors), not the entire rear end of the vehicle.
In re claim 19, Whitten further discloses further comprising: engaging a clip (portion of hinges 64 attached to frame) of the frame with the attachment portion of the vehicle; and securing a cover with the frame via a retaining member (pin between hinge portions).
In re claim 21, Whitten discloses a false bulkhead assembly (10) for engagement with a vehicle (12), said false bulkhead assembly comprising: a frame (20) adapted to be engaged with the vehicle at a first end (forward portion of frame as shown in Figure 5); a cover (16, 18) operably engaged with the frame and positioned behind a second end (rear end) of the frame opposite to the first end (at least a portion is “behind” the rear end of the frame); and a clip (hinges 64) provided on the frame and operable to secure the frame to a wall (60) of the vehicle
In re claim 24, Whitten discloses a method of concealing a bulkhead (60) of a vehicle (12), comprising steps of: providing a false bulkhead assembly (10) including a frame (20) and a cover (16, 18); engaging a clip (portion of hinges 64 attached to frame) of the frame with an attachment portion (portion of hinges 64 attached to vehicle) of the vehicle; securing the cover with the frame via a retaining member (pin between hinge portions); and hiding an entire rear region of the vehicle with the cover (as shown in Figure 1). See Examiner notes above with respect to claim 18 and “an entire rear region”.
In re claim 32, Whitten further discloses wherein the step of engaging the frame with the attachment portion of the vehicle further comprises: engaging a first end of the frame with the attachment portion of the vehicle; and positioning the cover behind a second end of the frame opposite to the first end (as discussed above).
In re claim 33, Whitten further discloses wherein the step of engaging the frame with the attachment portion of the vehicle further comprises: engaging a first end of the frame with the attachment portion of the vehicle; and positioning the cover between the first end of the frame and a second end of the frame opposite to the first end (as shown in Figure 5). The Examiner notes that at least part of the cover is between the forward and rearward edges of the frame when viewed from the side of the vehicle.
In re claim 34, Whitten further discloses maintaining the cover in a static configuration relative to the frame. The Examiner notes that when in the deployed position it can be considered to be “maintained in a static configuration” since it does not move when in use.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 27-30 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The specific limitations of “said false bulkhead assembly comprising: a frame adapted to be engaged with the vehicle at a first end; and a cover operably engaged with the frame solely and being maintained in a static configuration, wherein the cover is made of a flexible and fibrous material; wherein the cover is located a distance away from one of a front bulkhead and a rear bulkhead of the vehicle to hide drainage of precipitation that travels downwardly between the cover and the one of the front bulkhead and the rear bulkhead of the vehicle” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art does not disclose a false bulkhead cover attached solely to the false bulkhead frame while being maintained in a static position.
Claim 20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The specific limitations of “further comprising: inserting a portion of the cover into a recess defined by the clip of the frame; inserting the retaining member into the recess defined by the clip of the frame; and retaining the portion of the cover, via the retaining member, within the recess of the clip” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art does not disclose a false bulkhead cover attached in such a manner.
Claims 22-23 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: The specific limitations of “wherein the clip further comprises: a support arm extending away from a base wall of the frame; and an attachment arm extending outwardly away from a first end of the support arm, wherein the attachment arm and support arm are moveable between a straight position and a bent position when operably engaging the attachment arm with the attachment portion” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art does not disclose a false bulkhead cover attached in such a manner.
Claim 25 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: The specific limitations of “wherein the step of providing the false bulkhead assembly including the frame and the cover further comprises: providing a support arm of the clip extending away from a base wall of the frame; and providing an attachment arm of the clip extending outwardly away from a first end of the support arm, wherein the attachment arm and support arm are moveable between a straight position and a bent position when operably engaging the attachment arm with the attachment portion” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art does not disclose a false bulkhead cover attached in such a manner.
Claim 26 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The specific limitations of “wherein the step of providing the false bulkhead assembly including the frame and the cover further comprises: providing a protrusion of the clip extending away from an opposing second end of the attachment arm, wherein the protrusion is configured to operably engage with the attachment portion” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art does not disclose a false bulkhead cover attached in such a manner.
Claim 31 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The specific limitations of “wherein the step of providing the false bulkhead assembly including the frame and the cover further includes that the cover is solely engaged with the frame” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art does not disclose a false bulkhead cover attached solely engaged with the false bulkhead frame.
Claim 35 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The specific limitations of “housing a portion of the cover inside of the frame between a first end of the frame that engages with the attachment portion of the vehicle and a second end of the frame opposite to the first end” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art does not disclose a false bulkhead cover wherein a portion of the cover is housed inside of the frame as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claims 18 and 24, Applicant argues that Whitten does not teach that the cover entirely conceals a rear wall of the vehicle. The Examiner notes that this is not clearly claimed. As noted above, “an entire rear region” is not the equivalent to “entirely concealing a rear wall of the vehicle”. The term “region” can be interpreted to be any region that is covered by the cover of Whitten. Regarding claim 21, Applicant argues that Whitten does not teach the cover being behind a second end of the frame while also arguing that the fame is “inside of or interior to the cover”. The Examiner notes that if the frame is therefore “outside of or exterior to the cover” then the cover is also at least partially “behind” the frame.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael R Stabley whose telephone number is (571)270-3249. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5:30.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached on (571) 272-6265. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL R STABLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/KEVIN HURLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights