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 Objections
Claims 1 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: “positions” in line 6 of claim 1 and line 2 of claim 18 are misspelled as “positons”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 12 is 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.
Claim 12 improperly depending on itself, rendering insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations “the bias force” in the claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eom (KR 101075649 B1) in view of Johnston (US 6499790 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Eom discloses a tarping system (Eom, Fig. 1) for covering at least a portion of a cargo load carried on a cargo carrying surface (Eom, Fig. 1, covers the cargo space behind the cab 20, where cargo load can be carried in the cargo space) of a bed (Eom, 29 in Fig. 3) of a truck (Eom, Fig. 1) or trailer, the tarping system comprising: at least one flexible tarp (Eom, first paragraph on page 1 and third paragraph on page 2 of machine translation, the cover is wounded therefore is flexible, Fig. 2-3 also shows the wounded covers) extending along a lengthwise direction (Eom, Fig. 1) from a mounted end (Eom, Fig. 1, front end) to a free end (Eom, Fig. 1, rear end); at least one reel (Eom, 2 in Fig. 3) coupled to the mounted end of the tarp and operative to urge the tarp toward (Eom, paragraph 0028, spring urges the tarp/cover forward, therefore wound the cover into a stowed position) a stowed position (Eom, Fig. 2), under a return force (Eom, paragraph 0023 and 0028, spring force) imparted by the reel, while enabling a user to draw (Eom, paragraph 0017 and Fig. 12, user can draw using the handle 30) the tarp outwardly from the reel in the lengthwise direction against the return force from the stowed position to a deployed position (Eom, Fig. 1); and at least one mounting structure (Eom, Fig. 3-4, left and right side cover/tarp mounted to partition 12, the cargo bed, and the rail 4) configured to support the at least one reel and the at least one tarp (Eom, side reel 2 and side tarp 18 in Fig. 1 and 3) in an upstanding relation (Eom, Fig. 1-3) relative to the cargo carrying surface to enable the user to draw the tarp from the stowed position to the deployed position to cover at least a portion of a side (Eom, Fig. 1, one of the left and right sides) of the cargo load.
Eom fails to disclose coiled onto a spool.
Johnston teaches coiled onto a spool (Johnston, 16 in Fig. 1 and Col. 3 lines 40-41).
Johnston is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle cargo tarping as Eom.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as taught by Eom to incorporate the teachings of Johnston with a reasonable expectation of success and have a spool. Doing so allows the tarp to be rolled in an organized, controlled, and steady manner without damaging the tarp or causing disruption in the operations.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Eom in view of Johnston teaches the tarping system of claim 1, wherein the at least one flexible tarp includes first and second flexible tarps (Eom, paragraph 0001, left and right covers on both sides), the at least one reel includes first and second reels (Eom, 2-3 in Fig. 3), and the at least one mounting structure includes first and second mounting structures (Eom, Fig. 8, same mounting structure for both reels 2 and 3), each of the first and second mounting structures being configured to support separate ones of the first and second reels and separate ones of the first and second tarps (Eom, Fig. 8) in the upstanding relation on opposite sides of the cargo carrying surface to cover at least a portion of opposite sides of the cargo load.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Eom in view of Johnston teaches the tarping system of claim 2, wherein the first and second flexible tarps each have a length extending from the mounted end to the free end (Eom, Fig. 1) and a width extending generally transversely (Eom, Fig. 1, in vehicle height direction) to the length, wherein the length is greater than the width (Eom, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Eom in view of Johnston teaches the tarping system of claim 2, wherein the at least one flexible tarp includes a third flexible tarp (Eom, 19 in Fig. 1), the at least one reel includes a third reel (Eom, 1 in Fig. 1), and the at least one mounting structure includes a third mounting structure (Eom, Fig. 1, top of cab 20 and housing 33), the third mounting structure being configured to support the third reel and the third flexible tarp in generally transverse relation (Eom, Fig. 1 and 7-8) to the first and second reels and the first and second tarps for covering at least a portion of a top (Eom, Fig. 1) of the cargo load.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Eom in view of Johnston teaches the tarping system of claim 1, wherein the mounted end of the at least one tarp includes at least one of openings for releasably coupling the at least one tarp to the at least one reel, or a portion of a hook and loop fastener (Johnston, Col. 3 lines 55-57, Velcro is a hoop and loop fastener) for releasably coupling the tarp to the at least one reel.
Johnston is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle cargo tarping as Eom.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as taught by Eom to incorporate the teachings of Johnston with a reasonable expectation of success and use a hook and loop fastener. Doing so allows convenient removal and replacement of the tarp when required.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Eom in view of Johnston as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Wilhite (US 5054840 A).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Eom in view of Johnston teaches the tarping system of claim 2, wherein each of the first and second mounting structures being configured to orient the first and second reels facing forward toward a front (Eom, Fig. 3, reels 2 and 3 have portions/sides facing the front of the truck; and they are positioned forward of the partition 12 which they are mounted to) of the truck or trailer.
The combination of Eom in view of Johnston fails to teach a first and second top bracket operably fixed relative to the cargo carrying surface for slideably receiving a top end of the first and second reels and a first and second bottom bracket operably fixed relative to the cargo carrying surface for supporting a bottom end of the first and second reels.
Wilhite teaches a first and second top bracket (Wilhite, one of the brackets 46 and 48 in Fig. 3, after combination one of them will be at the top due to the upstanding orientation of the reels; each one of the reels can have their own corresponding brackets) operably fixed relative to the cargo carrying surface (Wilhite, after combination, can fixed to any structure of the truck such that it is fixed relative to the cargo carrying surface; Wilhite teaches it can be mounted by weldment or other means in Col. 3 lines 54-56) for slideably receiving a top end (Wilhite, Fig. 3-4, slide into slot 51/53) of the first and second reels and a first and second bottom bracket (Wilhite, the other one of the brackets 46 and 48 in Fig. 3, after combination one of them will be at the top due to the upstanding orientation of the reels; each one of the reels can have their own corresponding brackets) operably fixed relative to the cargo carrying surface (Wilhite, after combination, can fixed to any structure of the truck such that it is fixed relative to the cargo carrying surface; Wilhite teaches it can be mounted by weldment or other means in Col. 3 lines 54-56) for supporting a bottom end (Wilhite, Fig. 3, one of the ends at 51/53) of the first and second reels.
Wilhite is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle cargo tarping as Eom in view of Johnston.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as taught by Eom in view of Johnston to incorporate the teachings of Wilhite with a reasonable expectation of success and have brackets for each one of the reels. Doing so allows removal and replacement of the reel when required, and removal of the reel does not require lifting which can be easier to the user.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Eom in view of Johnston as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of An (KR 200476740 Y1).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Eom in view of Johnston teaches the tarping system of claim 1, wherein the return force imparted by the reel is a spring biased return force (Eom, paragraph 17).
The combination of Eom in view of Johnston fails to teach the force is constant.
An teaches constant (An, last paragraph on page 2 of machine translation, spring causes the tarp to roll back and keep the tarp tightened in the extended position, therefore providing a force constantly pulling on the tarp)
An is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle cargo tarping as Eom in view of Johnston.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as taught by Eom in view of Johnston to incorporate the teachings of An with a reasonable expectation of success and have a constantly applied spring force. Doing so allows the tarp/cover to stay tightened or taut in the extended position (An, last paragraph on page 2 of machine translation) such that noise is reduced, vehicle exterior is more streamlined/aerodynamic, and less tarp material is needed for covering the load.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eom in view of Johnston and Bromberek (US 20130062025 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Eom in view of Johnston and Bromberek teaches a device that performs the function disclosed in the method claim 11 when used in normal and usual operation. Eom discloses tarping (Eom, Fig. 1) a cargo load (Eom, paragraph 0020) carried on a cargo carrying surface (Eom, Fig. 1, covers the cargo space behind the cab 20, where cargo load can be carried in the cargo space) of a bed (Eom, 29 in Fig. 3) of a truck (Eom, Fig. 1) or trailer, comprising: providing at least one reel (Eom, 2 and/or 3 in Fig. 3) mounted in an upstanding relation (Eom, Fig. 1-3) relative to the cargo carrying surface, each of said at least one reel being operative to self-coil a tarp (Eom, 18 in Fig. 1 and 3) under a bias force (Eom, paragraph 0023 and 0028, spring force) onto the reel to a stowed position (Eom, Fig. 2); and a user (Eom, paragraph before paragraph 0013 in page 2 of machine translation, can be the driver), drawing the tarp (Eom, paragraph 0001, by a switch or a handle; also shown in Fig. 11-12 as switch 31 and handle 30) off the at least one reel against the bias force to an extended position (Eom, Fig. 1) to cover at least a portion of a side (Eom, Fig. 1, left and/or right sides) of the cargo load and releasably fixing (Eom, paragraph 23, worm structure can fix the cover/tarp in position) the tarp in the extended position.
Eom fails to disclose a spool and standing on a ground surface.
Johnston teaches coiled onto a spool (Johnston, 16 in Fig. 1 and Col. 3 lines 40-41).
Johnston is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle cargo tarping as Eom.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as taught by Eom to incorporate the teachings of Johnston with a reasonable expectation of success and have a spool. Doing so allows the tarp to be rolled in an organized, controlled, and steady manner without damaging the tarp or causing disruption in the operations.
Bromberek teaches standing on a ground surface (Bromberek, Fig. 3, user 22 standing on ground and operating a handle similar to handle 30 of Eom).
Bromberek is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle cargo tarping as Eom in view of Johnston.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as taught by Eom in view of Johnston to incorporate the teachings of Bromberek with a reasonable expectation of success and have the user operating the system while standing on ground. Doing so allows easy operation of the system, without requiring the user to move around or up and down the truck.
Regarding claim 12, Eom discloses the bias force as a spring bias (Eom, paragraph 0023 and 0028, spring force).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 8, and 13-20 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 primary reason for the allowance of the claims is the inclusion in the claims of the limitations directed to a grab handle coupled to the free end, the grab handles being configured to be grasped by the user, while standing on a ground surface, for tensioning the first and second tarps while drawing the first and second tarps from the stowed position to the deployed position against the return force and while returning the tarps from the deployed position to the stowed position under the return force as claimed in claim 5; the first and second reels can be lowered to slide and seat the bottom ends into a bottom receptacle of the respective first and second bottom brackets for purposes of mounting the first and second reels, and to enable the reverse to occur to dismount the first and second reels from the first and second mounting structures as claimed in claim 8; and a grab handle at a free end of the tarp for grasping by the user while standing on the ground surface as claimed in claim 13. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claims, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. Grab handles are common the art. For example, Bromberek (US 20130062025 A1) teaches a grab handle in Fig. 5. However, Eom already teaches a motorized control mechanism operable by a switch and a backup manual operating crank that can be used to operate the tarps from one convenient location. Adding the handles would likely require two people to operate the tarp since the side tarps and the top tarps in Eom are connected together, and operating only on one side will cause unsynchronized motion. Therefore. adding the handles onto the tarps would not be obvious absent impermissible hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references that are not relied upon all disclose vehicle tarps on a reel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wenwei Zhuo whose telephone number is (571)272-5564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. EST.
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 Weisberg can be reached at 571.270.5500. 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.
/WENWEI ZHUO/Examiner, Art Unit 3612