DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 5-12 are 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 5, “the wall of the pickup truck bed” lacks clear antecedent basis.
Claim 6, “the wall of the pickup truck bed” lacks clear antecedent basis.
Claim 7, “the wall of the pickup truck bed” lacks clear antecedent basis.
Claim 8, “the wall of the pickup truck bed” lacks clear antecedent basis.
Claim 9, “the wall of the pickup truck bed” lacks clear antecedent basis.
Claim 10, “the wall of the pickup truck bed” lacks clear antecedent basis.
Claim 11, “the wall of the pickup truck bed” lacks clear antecedent basis.
Claim 12, “the wall of the pickup truck bed” lacks clear antecedent basis.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bartkus ‘165.
Claim 1, Bartkus teaches a pickup truck bed storage system (figure 1) comprising a substantially planar mounting panel (20, figure 15) having an exterior surface and an interior surface opposite the exterior surface wherein the substantially planar mounting panel comprises a plurality of holes (22) with each hole passing from the exterior surface through the interior surface and at least one mounting hole (24) with each mounting hole passing from the exterior surface through the interior surface. Each mounting hole has a first radial dimension (i.e. the diameter of the mounting hole). The device further includes at least one mounting structure comprising a fastener (bolt 28) and a spacer (26). The fastener defines a second radial dimension (i.e. the diameter of the threaded bolt shank). Each fastener is capable of passing through a mounting hole of the at least one mounting hole and the spacer and is configured to connect to a truck bed wall mount (e.g. including bed sidewall hole 30) – see column 6, lines 1-8.
Claim 5, the relied upon mounting panel is secured to a pickup truck bed side wall and is configured as best understood.
Claim 14, the mounting hole diameter (i.e. the first measured dimension which defines a first radial dimension) is greater than the bolt diameter (i.e. the second measured dimension which defines a second radial dimension) such that the bolt can fit through the mounting hole. The device is thus configured as claimed.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13-14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Frost ‘602.
Claim 1, Frost teaches a truck bed storage system which could be used in a pickup truck (figure 3 embodiment) comprising a substantially planar mounting panel (top planar panel portion of element 110) having an exterior surface and an interior surface opposite the exterior surface wherein the substantially planar mounting panel comprises a plurality of holes (e.g. the apertures in row 120) with each hole passing from the exterior surface through the interior surface and at least one mounting hole (i.e. the hole in the face of element 110 receiving bolt 142 therethrough – figure 3) with each mounting hole passing from the exterior surface through the interior surface. Each mounting hole has a first radial dimension (i.e. the diameter of the mounting hole). The device further includes at least one mounting structure comprising a fastener (bolt 142) and a spacer (144). The fastener defines a second radial dimension (i.e. the diameter of the threaded bolt shank). Each fastener is capable of passing through a mounting hole of the at least one mounting hole and the spacer and is configured to connect to a truck bed wall mount (e.g. including a hole drilled in a bed sidewall hole as disclosed) – see paragraph 0017 – lines 7-10.
Claim 3, see strap 150 which interacts with at least one of the plurality of relied upon holes (in row 120) – see figure 6.
Claims 5 and 7, the Frost device is clearly constructed such that it could be used with a truck bed sidewall and is configured as broadly claimed and as best understood. Additionally as discussed above, in as much as the truck and bed per se are not positively recited elements of the instant claimed combination, the functional language relating thereto is given little patentable weight.
Claims 9 and 11, the Frost device is clearly constructed such that it could be used with a truck bed front wall and is configured as broadly claimed and as best understood. Additionally as discussed above, in as much as the truck and bed per se are not positively recited elements of the instant claimed combination, the functional language relating thereto is given little patentable weight.
Claim 13, the panel defines slots configured as broadly claimed – see slots of row 124.
Claim 14, the mounting hole diameter (i.e. the first measured dimension which defines a first radial dimension) is greater than the bolt diameter (i.e. the second measured dimension which defines a second radial dimension) such that the bolt can fit through the mounting hole. The device is thus configured as claimed.
Claim 18, alternatively reading the apertures of row 122 on the plurality of holes of the base claim, the apertures in row 120 define slots configured as broadly claimed. Note also at least strap 150 is configured to interact with at least one of the slots – see figure 6.
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) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartkus ‘165 in view of known art practices.
Bartkus teaches all of the features of claim 15 as discussed above regarding claim 14 but fails to specifically teach that the first measured dimension (i.e. the diameter of through hole 24) is at least 1% (or more as listed in the claim) greater than the second measured dimension (i.e. the diameter of the threaded shank of bolt 28) – the reference is silent as to the relative size of these dimensions.
Conventional sizing for bolt through holes (in this case the diameter of bolt through hole 24 of Bartkus – figure 15) relative to a received bolt diameter (in this case the diameter of the threaded shank of bolt 28 of Bartkus – again see figure 15) would very clearly be within at least the recited range of a 1% larger through hole diameter (i.e. first measured dimension) relative to the bolt shank diameter (i.e. the second measured dimension). In fact, a 1% greater diameter through hole relative to the diameter of a bolt passing therethrough would provide for an extremely tight fit of the bolt in the hole, and a relative sizing of a clearance through hole diameter relative to the bolt shank diameter received therein would rarely be even this small – i.e. the clearance hole “second measured dimension” would typically be much greater than the bolt shank “first measured dimension” beyond a 1% relative differential. Applicant has provided no evidence or discussion of any unexpected benefit of the relative dimension sizing as recited, and in this case then, specific recitation of relative sizes of the relied upon first measured dimension relative to the relied upon second measured dimension would not constitute a patentably distinct departure from the teachings of Bartkus in view of known art practices.
Claims 6, 8, 10, and 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 2, 4, 16-17, and 19 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 prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Johnson, Liu et al., Lenz, and Baker teach further examples of vehicle cargo bed securement systems known in the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen Gordon whose telephone number is (571)272-6661. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays 8am-4pm and Thursdays 8am-4pm.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at 571 272-5109. 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.
/STEPHEN T GORDON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612