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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/7/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 7 recites “relative to case”, but should recite “relative to the case”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-2, 7-8, 10-11, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troxel (US 20110232711) in view of Flores (US 20200353804).
Regarding claim 1, Troxel teaches an apparatus, comprising: a case (shown in fig. 9) configured to stow a canopy, and the case configured to couple with a crossbar (90 fig. 9); and
a beam (22) coupled with the case, and the beam configured to deploy the canopy external to the case (functional language),
wherein the canopy is configured to provide a planar surface (as shown in fig. 1, there is a surface that is considered planar) with the canopy deployed external to the case.
Troxel does not teach the case including a lid, the lid configured to open from a lateral wall of the case to provide access to the canopy from a side of the case.
Flores teaches an apparatus with a case (10), the case including a lid (26), the lid configured to open from a lateral wall of the case (fig. 6) to provide access to the canopy from a side of the case (fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Troxel with teachings of Flores so that the case includes a lid, the lid configured to open from a lateral wall of the case to provide access to the canopy from a side of the case. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of better protecting the canopy from the elements.
Regarding claim 2, modified Troxel teaches a bracket (94a), coupled with the case (all components are coupled together in the assembled unit), the bracket configured to rest on the crossbar of a vehicle (fig. 2), and the bracket configured to support the case (fig. 9); and the bracket comprises: a bar (portion of bracket that sits on top of crossbar, within the bounds of the crossbar) configured to rest within the crossbar of the vehicle; and a latch (portion that wraps around edge of crossbar coupling it) configured to couple the bracket with the crossbar.
Regarding claim 7, modified Troxel teaches the canopy including a configurable panel (18); and the configurable panel configured to move from a first position external to the case to a second position external to the case (capable of).
Regarding claim 8, modified Troxel teaches a strap (37) coupled with the beam (22); and the strap configured to couple with a vehicle (capable of), and the strap configured to support the beam with the canopy deployed external to the case (capable of).
Regarding claim 10, modified Troxel teaches that the beam (22) configured to support the canopy with the canopy in the position external to the case (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Troxel teaches a vehicle (fig. 1), comprising: a crossbar (90 fig. 9); and an apparatus, the apparatus including: a case (shown in fig. 9) configured to stow a canopy, and the case configured to couple with the crossbar (fig. 9); and a beam (22) coupled with the case, and the beam configured to deploy the canopy external to the case (functional language),
wherein the canopy is configured to provide a planar surface (as shown in fig. 1, there is a surface that is considered planar) with the canopy deployed external to the case.
Troxel does not teach the case including a lid, the lid configured to enclose the canopy within the case with the lid placed in a first position, and the lid configured to move, relative to the case, to a second position to provide access to the canopy from a side of the case.
Flores teaches a vehicle with a case (10), the case including a lid (26), the lid configured to enclose the canopy within the case with the lid placed in a first position (when closed), and the lid configured to move, relative to the case, to a second position (as shown in fig. 6) to provide access to the canopy from a side of the case (fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Troxel with teachings of Flores so that the case includes a lid, the lid configured to enclose the canopy within the case with the lid placed in a first position, and the lid configured to move, relative to the case, to a second position to provide access to the canopy from a side of the case. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of better protecting the canopy from the elements.
Regarding claim 16, modified Troxel teaches the canopy including a configurable panel (18); and the configurable panel configured to move from a first position external to the case to a second position external to the case (capable of).
Regarding claim 17, modified Troxel teaches that the beam is configured to support the canopy with the canopy in the position external to the case (fig. 1).
Claim(s) 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troxel (US 20110232711) in view of Flores (US 20200353804), and further in view of Volin (US 20210025191).
Regarding claim 3, although modified Troxel teaches the canopy configured to be coupled with the beam, it does not teach that the canopy comprises: an opening configured to receive a fastener; and the fastener configured to couple the canopy with the beam.
Volin teaches (fig. 1C, and 2B) a canopy that comprises: an opening (122 in fig. 1c) configured to receive a fastener (123); and the fastener configured to couple the canopy with a beam (102, fig. 2b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Troxel with teachings of Volin so that the canopy comprises: an opening configured to receive a fastener; and the fastener configured to couple the canopy with the beam. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of a simple means of removably connecting the components.
Regarding claim 13, although modified Troxel teaches the canopy configured to be coupled with the beam, it does not teach that the canopy comprises: an opening configured to receive a fastener; and the fastener configured to couple the canopy with the beam.
Volin teaches (fig. 1C, and 2B) a canopy that comprises: an opening (122 in fig. 1c) configured to receive a fastener (123); and the fastener configured to couple the canopy with a beam (102, fig. 2b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Troxel with teachings of Volin so that the canopy comprises: an opening configured to receive a fastener; and the fastener configured to couple the canopy with the beam. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of a simple means of removably connecting the components.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troxel (US 20110232711) in view of Flores (US 20200353804), and further in view of Settelmayer (US 20040256427).
Regarding claim 4, modified Troxel teaches that the lid is configured to enclose the canopy (see fig. 6 of Flores after the modification above), that the lid is configured to move from a first position (when closed) to a second position (when open), and wherein the lid encloses the canopy with the lid in the first position, and wherein the lid provides access to the canopy with the lid in the second position.
Modified Troxel does not explicitly teach a handle configured to move the lid from the first position to the second position.
Settelmayer teaches a case (20) including: a lid (24) configured to enclose a canopy (capable of) and a handle (paragraph 23) configured to move the lid from a first position to a second position (closed to open).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify the case of Troxel so that it includes: a handle configured to move the lid from the first position to the second position. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of making the canopy easier for the user to open.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troxel (US 20110232711) in view of Flores (US 20200353804), and further in view of Boyd (US 9090153).
Regarding claim 5, modified Troxel teaches a first portion and a second portion of the beam (divided at 70a in fig. 3a), but does not teach an enclosure, coupled with a wall of the case, the enclosure configured to cover, and couple with a plate; and the plate configured to receive a fastener, wherein the fastener is configured to couple with a first portion and a second portion of the beam.
Boyd teaches teach an enclosure (16 is considered an enclosure), coupled with a wall of a case (10b, column 5 lines 52-55), the enclosure configured to cover, and couple with a plate (38); and the plate configured to receive a fastener (16c), wherein the fastener is configured to couple with a beam (10c).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Troxel with teachings of Boyd so that there is an enclosure, coupled with a wall of the case, the enclosure configured to cover, and couple with a plate; and the plate configured to receive a fastener, wherein the fastener is configured to couple with the first portion and the second portion of the beam. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of more securely attaching the device to the case.
Claim(s) 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troxel (US 20110232711) in view of Flores (US 20200353804), and further in view of Sagi (US 20050206181).
Regarding claim 6, modified Troxel does not teach a light fixture coupled with the beam, the light fixture including a light source; and the light source configured to produce light, and the light source configured to electrically couple with a battery of a vehicle.
Sagi teaches (fig. 1) a light fixture (132) coupled with a beam (156), the light fixture including a light source (paragraph 32); and the light source configured to produce light, and the light source configured to electrically couple with a battery of a vehicle (capable of, paragraph 34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Troxel with teachings of Sagi so that a light fixture is coupled with the beam, the light fixture including a light source; and the light source configured to produce light, and the light source configured to electrically couple with a battery of a vehicle. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of allowing a user to operate and use the device in low light environments.
Regarding claim 15, Troxel does not teach a light fixture coupled with the beam, the light fixture including a light source; and the light source configured to produce light, and the light source configured to electrically couple with a battery of a vehicle.
Sagi teaches (fig. 1) a light fixture (132) coupled with a beam (156), the light fixture including a light source (paragraph 32); and the light source configured to produce light, and the light source configured to electrically couple with a battery of a vehicle (capable of, paragraph 34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Troxel with teachings of Sagi so that a light fixture is coupled with the beam, the light fixture including a light source; and the light source configured to produce light, and the light source configured to electrically couple with a battery of a vehicle. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of allowing a user to operate and use the device in low light environments.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troxel (US 20110232711) in view of Flores (US 20200353804), and further in view of Goth (US 20110048651).
Regarding claim 9, modified Troxel does not teach a data processing system, the data processing system comprising at least one processor, coupled with memory, to: receive, via a graphical user interface, a first indication to stow the canopy in a first position; stow, responsive to the first indication, the canopy in the first position; receive, via the graphical user interface, a second indication to deploy the canopy to a second position; and deploy, responsive to the second indication, the canopy to the second position.
Goth teaches (figs. 1a-1b) an awning apparatus for a vehicle with a data processing system, the data processing system comprising at least one processor (116), coupled with memory (paragraph 74), to: receive, via a graphical user interface (120 is considered a graphical user interface), a first indication to stow the canopy in a first position (retracted position); stow, responsive to the first indication, the canopy in the first position; receive, via the graphical user interface, a second indication to deploy the canopy to a second position (extended position); and deploy, responsive to the second indication, the canopy to the second position (the switches control the required movement of the canopy).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Troxel so that there is a data processing system, the data processing system comprising at least one processor, coupled with memory, to: receive, via a graphical user interface, a first indication to stow the canopy in a first position; stow, responsive to the first indication, the canopy in the first position; receive, via the graphical user interface, a second indication to deploy the canopy to a second position; and deploy, responsive to the second indication, the canopy to the second position. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of automating the device, making it easier for a user.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troxel (US 20110232711) in view of Flores (US 20200353804), and further in view of Geldert (US 20060012096).
Regarding claim 12, modified Troxel teaches the crossbar (90) configured to receive a bracket (94a) of the apparatus; and the bracket comprises: a bar (portion of bracket that sits on crossbar) configured to rest within the crossbar; and a latch (portion the wraps around edge of crossbar coupling it) configured to couple the bracket with the crossbar, but does not teach the crossbar including an opening, the opening configured to receive the bracket.
Geldert teaches a cross bar (6) with an opening (50, fig. 7), the opening configured to receive a bracket (fig. 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Troxel so that the crossbar including an opening, the opening configured to receive the bracket. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of a secure and removable connection between the components.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R SHEPHERD whose telephone number is (571)272-5657. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at (571) 270-5616. 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.
/M.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634