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 § 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 2, 4, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (US Patent 10,730,375) in view of Shen et al. (US Patent 11,407,294).
Re claim 2, Ma discloses a hard folding car cover, wherein, including a plurality of cover plates (22c, 22F, figure 2), two adjacent plates are connected to each other by a rotational shaft system (42), the rotational shaft system is provided with at least two hinges; the cover plates body includes one fixed cover plate (22f, as shown in figure 3, 22f is not intended to rotate) and at least one reversible cover plate (22c), the rotational shaft system includes a first rotating shaft system (40) and a second rotating shaft system (42), the reversible cover plate is connected to another reversible cover plate (22r) by a first rotating shaft system (40), the first rotating shaft system includes a first intermediate bar (44), the fixed cover plate is connected to the reversible cover plate by a second rotating shaft system (22f), and the second rotating shaft system includes a second intermediate bar (44).
Ma does not disclose the second intermediate bar having the same width as the first intermediate bar in the longitudinal direction of the hard folding car cover.
Shen et al. teaches using a first intermediate bar a second intermediate bar (both bars are labeled “1” in figure 4) having a same width in the longitudinal direction of a hard folding car cover.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a hard folding car cover, such as that disclosed by Ma, to have the second intermediate bar have the same width as the first intermediate bar in the longitudinal direction of the hard folding car cover, as taught by Shen et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to standardize the size of the intermediate bars so that manufacturing different size intermediate bars is unnecessary and thus reduce the cost of producing the device.
Re claim 4, Ma further discloses the fixed cover plate (22f) is the third cover plate, the reversing cover plate includes a first cover plate (22r) and a second cover plate (22c), the first cover plate is connected to the second cover plate by a first rotating shaft system (40), the second cover plate (22c) is connected to the third cover plate (22f) by a second rotational shaft system (42).
Re claim 8, Ma further discloses discloses the first rotating shaft system further includes a first frame (27) and a second frame (36) , the first frame and the second frame are rotatably connected to both sides of the first intermediate bar (44) , both the first frame and the second frame are used for connecting the cover plate, the second rotating shaft system further includes a third frame (35) and a fourth frame (32), the third frame and fourth frame are rotatably connected to both sides of the second intermediate bar (44), both the third frame and the forth frame are used for connecting the cover plate.
Claims 3, 5, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (US Patent 10,730,375) in view of Shen et al. (US Patent 11,407, 294) , as applied to claims 2, 4, and 8 above, and further in view of Qiu et al. (US Patent 11,890,921).
Re claim 3, Ma and Shen et al. disclose all the limitations of the claim, as applied above, except for the reversible cover plate is connected with a limiting system, the limiting system includes a limiting component and a guide groove, the guide groove is connected to the reversible cover plate, the guide groove is set in correspondence with the limiting component, the fixed cover plate is connected with a fixing buckle groove system.
Qiu et al. teaches a reversible cover plate (11, figure 4) connected with a limiting system (3), the limiting system including a limiting component (bolt 33) and a guide groove (39, figure 5), the guide groove being connected to the reversible cover plate, the guide groove being set in correspondence with the limiting component, and a fixed cover plate (14) connected with a fixing buckle groove system (shown in figure 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a hard folding car cover, such as that disclosed by Ma and Shen et al. above, to have the reversible cover plate be connected with a limiting system, the limiting system including a limiting component and a guide groove, the guide groove being connected to the reversible cover plate, the guide groove being set in correspondence with the limiting component, the fixed cover plate being connected with a fixing buckle groove system, as taught by Qiu et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to hold the car cover to the vehicle when the vehicle is in motion to prevent it from becoming detached and damaged.
Re claim 5, Ma and Shen et al. disclose all the limitations of the claims, as applied above, except for the first cover plate and second cover plate being respectively connected to a limiting system, the limiting system including a limiting component and a guide groove, the guide groove being connected to the reversible cover plate, the guide groove being set in correspondence with the limiting component, and a third cover plate being connected to a fixing buckle groove system.
Qui et al. discloses the first cover plate and second cover plate are respectively connected to a limiting system (3 and 4, figure 2), the limiting system includes a limiting component (bolt 33 or buckle shown in figure 14) and a guide groove (39 figure 5) , the guide groove is connected to the reversible cover plate, the guide groove is set in correspondence with the limiting component, a third cover plate is connected to a fixing buckle groove system (shown in figure 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a hard folding car cover, such as that disclosed by Ma and Shen et al., to have the first cover plate and second cover plate be respectively connected to a limiting system, the limiting system including a limiting component and a guide groove, the guide groove being connected to the reversible cover plate, the guide groove being set in correspondence with the limiting component, and a third cover plate being connected to a fixing buckle groove system, as taught by Qui et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to hold the car cover to the vehicle when the vehicle is in motion to prevent it from becoming detached and damaged.
Re claim 9, Ma and Shen et al. do not disclose the limiting system being a spanner groove system, the spanner groove system including a spanner, a short spanner groove, a spanner fixing block, a spanner slider and a first T-rod, the short spanner groove is attached to the cover plate, the spanner fixing block is fixedly connected in the short spanner groove, the spanner slider is slidingly set in the short spanner groove, one end of the spanner is rotatably connected to the spanner slider by the first T-rod.
Qui et al teaches a limiting system being a spanner groove system, the spanner groove system including a spanner (44), a short spanner groove (the groove provided by 41 in which 42 slides), a spanner fixing block (43), a spanner slider (42) and a first T-rod, the short spanner groove being attached to the cover plate (as shown in figure 14), the spanner fixing block being fixedly connected in the short spanner groove, the spanner slider being slidingly set in the short spanner groove, one end of the spanner being rotatably connected to the spanner slider by the first T-rod (as shown in figure 14).
PNG
media_image1.png
534
577
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a hard folding car cover, such as that disclosed Ma and Shen et al. above, to have the limiting system be a spanner groove system, the spanner groove system including a spanner, a short spanner groove, a spanner fixing block, a spanner slider and a first T-rod, the short spanner groove being attached to the cover plate, the spanner fixing block being fixedly connected in the short spanner groove, the spanner slider being slidingly set in the short spanner groove, one end of the spanner being rotatably connected to the spanner slider by the first T-rod, as taught by Qui et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to hold the car cover to the vehicle when the vehicle is in motion to prevent it from becoming detached and damaged while also allowing the cover to be easily detached when desired by the user to fold the cover and load the cargo bed.
Re claim 10, Ma and Shen et al. do not disclose the limiting system being a lock bolt system, the lock bolt system including a lock bolt, a handle, a first lock bolt groove, a second lock bolt groove and a wire support block, the first lock bolt groove and the second lock bolt groove being connected by the wire support block, the first lock bolt groove being slidingly connected with a lock bolt, the second lock bolt groove being slidingly connected with a lock bolt, the two lock bolts being connected to each other by a wire, the wire passing through the wire support block, the steel wire being threaded with a handle.
Qui et al. teaches the limiting system being a lock bolt system, the lock bolt system including a lock bolt (33, figure 7), a handle (3), a first lock bolt groove (to the left of 36 in figure 6), a second lock bolt groove (to the right of 36 in figure 6) and a wire support block (36), the first lock bolt groove and the second lock bolt groove being connected by the wire support block, the first lock bolt groove being slidingly connected with a lock bolt , the second lock bolt groove being slidingly connected with a lock bolt (both lock bolts are shown in figure 4), the two lock bolt being connected to each other by a wire (35), the wire passing through the wire support block, and the steel wire being threaded with a handle (3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a hard folding car cover, such as that disclosed by Ma and Shen et al. above, to have the limiting system be a lock bolt system, the lock bolt system including a lock bolt, a handle, a first lock bolt groove, a second lock bolt groove and a wire support block, the first lock bolt groove and the second lock bolt groove being connected by the wire support block, the first lock bolt groove being slidingly connected with a lock bolt, the second lock bolt groove being slidingly connected with a lock bolt, the two lock bolts being connected to each other by a wire, the wire passing through the wire support block, the steel wire being threaded with a handle, as taught by Qui et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to hold the car cover to the vehicle when the vehicle is in motion to prevent it from becoming detached and damaged while also allowing the cover to be easily detached when desired by the user to fold the cover and load the cargo bed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7, and 11 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 primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in claims is the inclusion in the claims of the limitations directed to the lock bolt positioning block being provided with a beveled contact surface, an insert section, a fixing hole and lateral sides, the insert section being inserted into the guide rail, the screw passing through he fixing hole to connect the lock bolt positioning block with the guide rail, the beveled contact surface being angled downwards, and the lateral sided being used to limit the lock bolt. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claims, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection presented above. Applicant’s arguments filed 6/30/2025 were persuasive and thus the rejection of claims 2, 4, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) was withdrawn. A new rejection of these claims is presented above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Jason S Morrow whose telephone number is (571)272-6663. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m..
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.
/JASON S MORROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
October 6, 2025