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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The use of the term “original” as it appears in the amended claims lacks antecedent basis in the specification.
Drawings
The drawing replacement sheet was received on 12/5/25. However, the drawing is not approved because the distance 124 in Fig 1 as annotated below appears to be indicating a vertical dimension while line b is not vertically disposed above line a. Also, line b is located to intersect the center of the custom bed and line a is located to intersect the place where the tire meets the ground at the tire on a side of the custom bed. Also, the specification (para. [0027]) defines the bed height (124) to be a height of the bed above factory frame rail mounting points when the vehicle system (100) is stationary on level ground not the distance of the bed from ground level.
PNG
media_image1.png
530
614
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “frame” (line 2 of claim 1), the “frame rail mounting point” (on line 3 of claim 1) and “original bed height” (on line 4 of claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The recitation in claim 1, lines 11-12 of “a custom bed height that is approximately equal to or lower than the original bed height” is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, since the original bed height is defined in the specification, as well as on lines 3-5 of claim 1, by association of an original bed that is not shown with a frame rail mounting point that is not shown, it is unclear how a custom bed is constructed to include a custom bed height, which is defined in the specification as being a height of a deck of the custom bed above the frame rail mounting point that is not shown, so that the relationship recited on lines 11-12 of claim 1 between the original bed height and the custom bed height are achieved. The specification fails to convey how an original bed and a custom bed are attached to a frame rail mounting point so that a comparison between the original bed height and the custom bed height can be made, especially in the instance where the custom bed height is lower than the original bed height. Claim 20 recites features that are similar to claim 1 and which are also not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
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 1-9 and 13-20 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.
In claim 1, line 4, it is misleading and misdescriptive to recite that the “vehicle defines an original bed height” because such bed height is defined in the specification (para. [0027]) as the “height of a deck of the factory (original) bed above factory (original) frame mounting points when the factory (original) bed is attached to the frame”. Therefore, the vehicle itself does not define an original bed height. On lines 11 and 12, it is unclear how the custom bed height can be lower than the original bed height when each are defined as being the height above the same at least one frame rail mounting point. Claim 20 has instances of indefiniteness similar to those described above with respect to claim 1.
Furthermore, in claim 14, it is unclear how the degree of angle of the lower edge of the lower box can increase the custom departure angle when the departure angle is defined between where the tire meets the ground and the back overhang of the vehicle as indicated at element 128 in Fig. 1. Any angle of the lower edge of the lower box which does not intersect the angle of inclination line 132 in Fig. 1 would have no effect on the custom departure angle.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Specifically, claim 17 has the same language as that added to the last 4 lines of claim 1 by the amendment filed 12/5/25. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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 1-6 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stocks et al. US 10,029,603 in view of Albertini et al. US 5,845,952.
Stocks et al. disclose a system including a truck chassis (108; Figs. 2C, 3 and 4) which includes a framework to support a portion of a truck bed unit (110; Figs. 2C, 3 and 4), as disclosed in col. 3, lines 33-39. The truck bed unit (110) may include a box bed as shown in Figs. 3 and 4 (col. 3, line 56) or a flatbed as shown in Fig. 2C (col. 3, lines 59-60) which are interchangeably attached to the chassis (col. 5, lines 13-14). Additional types of truck bed units (110) are disclosed in column 4, lines 9-16. Any one of these truck bed units (110) may be attached to the chassis (108) when the truck (102; Figs. 2C, 3 and 4) is received from the factory or may be attached to the chassis (108) by the consumer if the truck (102) is purchased from the factory without a truck bed unit thereon. In either case, the first type of any of the truck bed units (110) that is attached to the chassis is considered to be the “original truck bed”. With the “original truck bed” being defined in this manner, the first type of truck bed unit (110) that is attached to the chassis (108) may be the flatbed truck bed unit (110), as shown in Fig. 2C. Therefore, the flatbed truck bed unit (110) in Fig. 2C is considered to be the “original bed” which is interchangeable with the box bed truck bed unit (110) shown in Figs. 3 and 4, where such box bed truck bed unit, when interchanged with the flatbed truck bed unit, is considered to be a “custom bed” in that it replaces the original flatbed truck bed unit and has different features, such as sidewalls which form a box, or “customizations” as compared to the original flatbed truck bed unit. Since both the flatbed truck bed unit (110; Fig. 2C) and the box bed truck bed unit (Fig. 3 and 4) can be selectively attached to the chassis (108) by way of the same “extensions” (116; Figs. 2C , 3 and 4) configuration, the custom bed height is considered to be equal to the original bed height. Therefore, with the original bed and custom bed defined in this manner, Stocks et al. is considered to disclose certain features of claim 1 as follows.
Regarding claim 1, Stocks et al. discloses:
A vehicle system comprising:
a vehicle (102; Figs. 2C, 3 and 4) comprising a frame, i.e., chassis (108, Figs. 2C, 3 and 4) including at least one frame rail (as identified in annotated Fig. 2C below) and at least one frame rail mounting point (as identified in the right bottom corner of annotated Fig. 2C, located where posts (212; Fig. 2C) connect to the frame rails), wherein the flatbed in Fig. 2C defines an original bed with an original bed height above the at least one frame rail mounting point (as identified in the right bottom corner of annotated Fig. 2C, where posts (212; Fig. 2C) connects to the frame rails), and
a custom bed (the box bed truck bed unit 110 shown in Figs. 3 and 4) attached to the frame, i.e., chassis (108, Figs. 2C, 3 and 4), the custom bed comprising a deck (as is configured identically to that of the deck of the flatbed as identified in annotated Fig. 2C below) attached to the frame, i.e., chassis (108, Figs. 3 and 4), wherein the deck defines a custom bed height (above the at least one frame rail mounting point) that is approximately equal to or lower than the original bed height (since both the flatbed truck bed unit (110; Fig. 2C) and the box bed truck bed unit (Fig. 3 and 4) can be selectively attached to the chassis (108) by way of the same “extensions” (116; Figs. 2C , 3 and 4) configuration, i.e., are interchangeable, (as disclosed in col. 6, lines 12-14) the custom bed height is considered to be equal to the original bed height) and a departure angle defined as an angle between grade and a line drawn between a back wheel and an end of the vehicle at a back overhang of the vehicle (as illustrated in annotated Fig. 3 below), the vehicle having a custom departure angle when the custom bed is attached to the frame.
PNG
media_image2.png
865
923
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
630
946
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, Stocks et al. do not disclose that the deck has at least one box for storage attached to the deck above the deck or wherein the custom departure angle is about 30 degrees to about 75 degrees.
Notwithstanding, Albertini et al. disclose a customized box bed truck bed unit (see annotated Fig. 1 below) with a deck (16; Fig. 1) and at least one box for storage (see annotated Fig. 1 below) attached to the deck above the deck (16; Fig. 1), where the at least one box comprises at least one upper box (see annotated Fig. 1 below) attached to the deck (16; Fig. 1), wherein a bottom of the at least one upper box is positioned an upper box distance (as illustrated in annotated Fig. 1 below) above the deck (16; Fig. 1) and where the at least one box comprises a plurality of upper boxes (see annotated Fig. 1 below) attached to the deck and a plurality of lower boxes (see annotated Fig. 1 below) attached to the deck (16; Fig. 1), wherein the plurality of upper boxes and the plurality of lower boxes are removably attached to the deck (in that they can be removed as desired, for example for repair or replacement) such that the plurality of upper boxes and the plurality of lower boxes are modular.
PNG
media_image4.png
776
1063
media_image4.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skill in the art is someone presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. The Albertini et al. reference is considered to be relevant art in that the Albertini et al. reference is in the same field of endeavor, namely that which pertains to vehicle bed constructions, as the Stocks et al. reference.
Therefore, it 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 to provide the deck of Stocks et al. with the storage box arrangement of Albertini et al. attached to the deck with a reasonable expectation of success in order to more easily transport a variety of items.
In addition, section 2144.04 IV. A. of the MPEP sets forth the Federal Circuit case of In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), which held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Therefore, it 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 to construct the custom departure angle of Stocks et al., as modified by Albertini et al., to be about 30 degrees to about 75 degrees with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claims 2, Stocks et al., as modified by Albertini et al., disclose: The vehicle system of claim 1, as explained above, further comprising a topper or camper attached to the custom bed because the truck bed unit 110 of Stocks et al. may be a camper (column 4, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 3, Stocks et al., as modified by Albertini et al., disclose: The vehicle system of claim 2, as explained above, wherein the topper or camper comprises a truck topper because the “camper” (column 4, lines 1-4) is also considered to be a “topper”, as broadly as recited.
Regarding claim 4, Stocks et al., as modified by Albertini et al., disclose: The vehicle system of claim 2, as explained above, wherein the topper or camper comprises a camper because the truck bed unit 110 of Stocks et al. may be a camper (column 4, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 5, Stocks et al., as modified by Albertini et al., disclose that the vehicle system has an original bed height. However, Stocks et al., as modified by Albertini et al., do not specifically disclose the height to be about 1 to 4 inches.
However, section 2144.04 IV. A. of the MPEP sets forth the Federal Circuit case of In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), which held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Therefore, it 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 to construct the original bed height of Stocks et al., as modified by Albertini et al., to be about 1 to 4 inches with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 6, Stocks et al., as modified by Albertini et al., disclose that the vehicle system has a custom bed height. However, Stocks et al., as modified by Albertini et al., do not specifically disclose the height to be about 1 to 4 inches.
However, section 2144.04 IV. A. of the MPEP sets forth the Federal Circuit case of In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), which held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Therefore, it 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 to construct the custom bed height of Stocks et al., as modified by Albertini et al., to be about 1 to 4 inches with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 17, Stocks et al., as modified by Albertini et al., disclose the vehicle system of claim 1, as explained above, wherein a departure angle is defined as an angle between grade and a line drawn between a back wheel and an end of the vehicle at a back overhang of the vehicle, the vehicle has a custom departure angle when the custom bed is attached to the frame, wherein the custom departure angle is about 30 degrees to about 75 degrees, in that such language is the same as the language on the last four lines of claim 1 and has already been treated above.
Regarding claim 18, Stocks et al., as modified by Albertini et al., disclose: The vehicle system of claim 1, wherein the at least one box comprises at least one upper box attached to the deck, wherein a bottom of the at least one upper box is positioned an upper box distance above the deck as taught by teaching reference Albertini et al. in the obviousness statement above with Stocks et al. as the base reference. Specifically, Albertini teaches a customized box bed truck bed unit (see annotated Fig. 1 below) with a deck (16; Fig. 1) and at least one box for storage (see annotated Fig. 1 below) attached to the deck above the deck (16; Fig. 1), where the at least one box comprises at least one upper box (see annotated Fig. 1 below) attached to the deck (16; Fig. 1), wherein a bottom of the at least one upper box is positioned an upper box distance (as illustrated in annotated Fig. 1 below) above the deck (16; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, Stocks et al., as modified by Albertini et al., disclose: The vehicle system of claim 1, wherein the at least one box comprises a plurality of upper boxes attached to the deck and a plurality of lower boxes attached to the deck, wherein the plurality of upper boxes and the plurality of lower boxes are removably attached to the deck such that the plurality of upper boxes and the plurality of lower boxes are modular as taught by teaching reference Albertini et al. in the obviousness statement above with Stocks et al. as the base reference. Specifically, Albertini teaches a customized box bed truck bed unit (see annotated Fig. 1 below) with a deck (16; Fig. 1) and at least one box for storage (see annotated Fig. 1 below) attached to the deck above the deck (16; Fig. 1), where the at least one box comprises at least one upper box (see annotated Fig. 1 below) attached to the deck (16; Fig. 1), wherein a bottom of the at least one upper box is positioned an upper box distance (as illustrated in annotated Fig. 1 below) above the deck (16; Fig. 1) and where the at least one box comprises a plurality of upper boxes (see annotated Fig. 1 below) attached to the deck and a plurality of lower boxes (see annotated Fig. 1 below) attached to the deck (16; Fig. 1), wherein the plurality of upper boxes and the plurality of lower boxes are removably attached to the deck (in that they can be removable as desired, for example for repair or replacement) such that the plurality of upper boxes and the plurality of lower boxes are modular.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stocks et al. US 10,029,603 in view of Albertini et al. US 5,845,952.
Regarding claim 7, the various embodiments of the vehicle system of Stocks et al., as modified by Albertini et al., including the factory bed configuration and the custom bed configuration (as discussed above with respect to claim 1), may have suspension components (see column 3, lines 26-28 of Stocks et al.) where a vehicle’s suspension naturally has a suspension stroke resulting in a certain wheel travel. Thus, Stocks et al., as modified by Albertini et al., is considered to have a factory wheel travel and a custom wheel travel.
Stocks et al., as modified by Albertini et al. do not disclose that the a factory wheel travel and a custom wheel travel are equal.
However, the factory wheel travel and the custom wheel travel would be equal if a range of the weight of loads to be transported were the same for each configuration.
Therefore, it 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 to construct the suspension and resulting factory wheel travel and custom wheel travel of Stocks et al., as modified by Albertini et al., where the same range of loads can be carried in each configuration, to be equal with a reasonable expectation of success since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges (the range of loads to be carried in this instance) involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation would be that a single type of suspension can be utilized for each configuration when the same range of loads is to be carried to obviate the need for an adjustable suspension.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Stocks et al., as modified by Albertini et al., do not disclose the equal factory wheel travel and the custom wheel travel being about 6.0 to about 10.0 inches and about 6.0 to 14.0 inches, respectively.
However, section 2144.04 IV. A. of the MPEP sets forth the Federal Circuit case of In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), which held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Therefore, it 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 to construct the suspension so that the equal factory wheel travel and the custom wheel travel of Stocks et al., as modified by Albertini et al., is about 6.0 to about 10.0 inches or about 6.0 to 14.0 inches, respectively, with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stocks et al. US 10,029,603 in view of Albertini et al. US 5,845,952, as applied above to claim 10, and further in view of the Bowen Customs reference below (reference U on the attached PTO-892).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Stocks et al., as modified by, Albertini et al. disclose:
The vehicle system of claim 10, except wherein the at least one box comprises at least one lower box attached to the deck behind the back wheel, the at least one lower box comprises the end of the vehicle at the back overhang of the vehicle and except where
wherein the lower edge is angled to increase the custom departure angle.
However, the Bowen Customs reference discloses a box bed custom bed with a lower box (as identified in the picture below) which is attached to a deck of the custom bed behind the back wheel to define the back overhang of the vehicle and the lower box has an angled lower edge that increases the departure angle of the custom bed.
PNG
media_image5.png
427
647
media_image5.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skill in the art is someone presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. The Bowen Customs reference is considered to be relevant art in that the Bowen Customs reference is in the same field of endeavor, namely that which pertains to vehicle bed constructions, as the Stocks et al. reference.
Therefore, it 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 to provide the custom bed of Stocks et al., as modified by, Albertini et al. with an angle lower box behind the back wheel with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the storage capacity of the custom bed.
Regarding claim 15, Stocks et al., as modified by Albertini et al., disclose that the lower edge of the lower box defines an angled edge, except for the exact angle being about 13 degrees to about 25 degrees.
However, section 2144.04 IV. A. of the MPEP sets forth the Federal Circuit case of In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), which held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Therefore, it 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 to construct the construct the lower box of Stocks et al., as modified by Albertini et al., to have a lower box angle of about 13 degrees to about 25 degrees with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stocks et al. US 10,029,603 in view of Albertini et al. US 5,845,952, as applied above to claim 1, and further in view of Ranjan et al. 10,315,479.
Regarding claim 16, Stocks et al., as modified by Albertini et al., disclose the various embodiments of the vehicle system of Stocks et al. including the factory bed configuration and the custom bed configuration (as discussed above with respect to claim 1), may have suspension components (see column 3, lines 26-28 of Stocks et al.) where a vehicle’s suspension naturally has a suspension stroke resulting in a certain wheel travel. Thus, Stocks et al., as modified by Albertini et al., is considered to have a factory wheel travel and a custom wheel travel.
However, Stocks et al., as modified by Albertini et al., does not disclose that the factory wheel travel is different from the custom wheel travel, namely the custom wheel travel is greater than the factory wheel travel.
However, Ranjan et al. discloses that a suspension element may be selectively adjusted to suit a desired suspension function based upon user preference given a particular load and/or type of terrain. See column 2, lines 13-18.
A person of ordinary skill in the art is someone presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. The Ranjan et al. reference is considered to be relevant art in that the Ranjan et al. reference is in the same field of endeavor, namely that which pertains to vehicle suspensions, as the Stocks et al. reference.
Therefore, it 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 to adjust the suspension function and associated wheel travel between the factory bed and custom bed configurations of Stocks et al., as modified by Albertini et al., to differ, including for the custom wheel travel being greater than the factory wheel travel, as taught by Ranjan et al. with a reasonable expectation of success based upon user preference given a particular load the vehicle is carrying and/or type of terrain that the vehicle is traveling over.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stocks et al. US 10,029,603 in view of Albertini et al. US 5,845,952.
Regarding claim 20, Stocks et al. disclose:
A method of manufacturing a vehicle system comprising:
Providing a vehicle (102; Figs. 2C, 3 and 4) comprising a frame, i.e., chassis (108, Figs. 2C, 3 and 4) including at least one frame rail (as identified in annotated Fig. 2C below) and at least one frame rail mounting point (as identified in the right bottom corner of annotated Fig. 2C, located where posts (212; Fig. 2C) connect to the frame rails), wherein the flatbed in Fig. 2C defines an original bed with an original bed height above the at least one frame rail mounting point (as identified in the right bottom corner of annotated Fig. 2C, where posts (212; Fig. 2C) connects to the frame rails), and
attaching a custom bed (the box bed truck bed unit 110 shown in Figs. 3 and 4) attached to the frame, i.e., chassis (108, Figs. 2C, 3 and 4), the custom bed comprising a deck (as is configured identically to that of the deck of the flatbed as identified in annotated Fig. 2C below) attached to the frame, i.e., chassis (108, Figs.3 and 4), wherein the deck defines a custom bed height (above the at least one frame rail mounting point) that is approximately equal to or lower than the original bed height (since both the flatbed truck bed unit (110; Fig. 2C) and the box bed truck bed unit (Fig. 3 and 4) can be selectively attached to the chassis (108) by way of the same “extensions” (116; Figs. 2C , 3 and 4) configuration, i.e., are interchangeable, as disclosed in col. 6, lines 12-14) the custom bed height is considered to be equal to the original bed height), and wherein the custom bed height is a height of the deck above the at least one frame rail mounting point when the custom bed is attached to the frame,
wherein the vehicle has an original center of gravity, wherein the vehicle system has a custom center of gravity when the custom bed is attached to the frame, and wherein the custom center of gravity is approximately equal to the original center of gravity which is naturally the case when the custom bed height is approximately equal to that of the original bed height, where such instance is detailed in the previous paragraph of this rejection.
However, Stocks et al. do not disclose that the deck has at least one box for storage attached to the deck.
However, Albertini et al. disclose a customized box bed truck bed unit (see annotated Fig. 1 above) with a deck (16; Fig. 1) and at least one box for storage (see annotated Fig. 1 above) attached to the deck above the deck (16; annotated Fig. 1 above)
Therefore, it 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 to provide the deck of Stocks et al. with at least one box for storage attached to the deck as taught by Albertini et al. with a reasonable expectation of success in order to transport items by use of the deck surface to support storage boxes.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/5/25 have been fully considered. Examiner’s response thereto follows. Reference to certain page numbers below are the pages of the “REMARKS” section of the amendment of 12/5/25 as numbered thereon.
Regarding applicant’s argument “1” stated on page 11 under “1. Stocks does not disclose…”, it includes passages from Stocks et al. from page 11 to page 14 followed by the specific argument on lines 4-7 of page 14 that “Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Office’s interpretation because the extensions 116 or 216 and the truck bed unit 110 are part of a system that is added to the chassis 108, and, as such, the extensions 116 or 216 and the truck bed unit cannot define the original bed height”. Applicant goes on from the bottom of page 14 to the top of page 15 to make assertions in support of this argument. Namely, by referencing Stocks et al. col. 1, lines 20-23 which state that when “a truck is received from a manufacturer, the truck usually has one truck bed attached to the chassis. The truck is not usually removable” in addition to further reference to portions of Stocks on lines 1-8 of page 15. This argument is not persuasive because in the above passage from Stocks et al., col;. 1, lines 20-23, the mention of a “truck” is not the truck of the current invention. It is referring to a typical truck which usually has certain features relating to a non-removable bed. Therefore, this passage is describing the prior art and not the invention of Stocks et al. and, as such, the non-removable truck bed mentioned in the background section does not define the original bed height of the invention of Stocks et al.
It is the Examiner’s position that the “original bed” and associated bed height recited in claim 1 is disclosed by Stocks et al. is as follows.
Stocks et al. disclose a system including a truck chassis (108; Figs. 2C, 3 and 4) which includes a framework to support a portion of a truck bed unit (110; Figs. 2C, 3 and 4), as disclosed in col. 3, lines 33-39. The truck bed unit (110) may include a box bed as shown in Figs. 3 and 4 (col. 3, line 56) or a flatbed as shown in Fig. 2C (col. 3, lines 59-60) which are interchangeably attached to the chassis (col. 5, lines 13-14). Additional types of truck bed units (110) are disclosed in column 4, lines 9-16. Any one of these truck bed units (110) may be attached to the chassis (108) when the truck (102; Figs. 2C, 3 and 4) is received from the factory or may be attached to the chassis (108) by the consumer if the truck (102) is purchased from the factory without a truck bed unit thereon. In either case, the first type of any of the truck bed units (110) that is attached to the chassis is considered to be the “original truck bed”. With the “original truck bed” being defined in this manner, the first type of truck bed unit (110) that is attached to the chassis (108) may be the flatbed truck bed unit (110), as shown in Fig. 2C. Therefore, the flatbed truck bed unit (110) in Fig. 2C is considered to be the “original bed” which is interchangeable with the box bed truck bed unit (110) shown in Figs. 3 and 4, where such box bed truck bed unit, when interchanged with the flatbed truck bed unit, is considered to be a “custom bed” in that it replaces the original flatbed truck bed unit and has different features, such as sidewalls which form a box, or “customizations” as compared to the original flatbed truck bed unit. Since both the flatbed truck bed unit (110; Fig. 2C) and the box bed truck bed unit (Fig. 3 and 4) can be selectively attached to the chassis (108) by way of the same “extensions” (116; Figs. 2C , 3 and 4) configuration, the custom bed height is considered to be equal to the original bed height. Applicant’s next argument appears on page 14, lines 11-12, which states that “Stocks cannot describe or suggest a custom bed with a custom bed height that is approximately equal to or lower than the original bed height”. This is not persuasive because this argument is based upon Applicant’s position that the “the original non-removable truck bed mentioned in the background section of Stocks defines the claimed original bed”, where this manner of defining the ”original bed” is rebutted by the Examiner above. Specifically, the non-removable truck bed mentioned in the background section is of a typical bed of the prior art and not that of the invention of Stocks.
Applicant’s next argument appears on the last four lines of page 15, which states that “the deck of the truck bed unit 110 cannot be at or below the original bed height because extensions 116 life the truck bed unit 110 above the chassis 108” and furthermore “Stocks cannot describe or suggest a custom bed with a custom height that is approximately equal to or lower than the original bed height”. Once again, this is not persuasive because this argument is based upon Applicant’s position that the “the original non-removable truck bed mentioned in the background section of Stocks defines the claimed original bed”, where this manner of defining the ”original bed” is rebutted by the Examiner above. Specifically, the non-removable truck bed mentioned in the background section is of a typical bed of the prior art and not that of the invention of Stocks.
On page 16, lines 4-12, Applicant makes a general statement that none of the cited references describes or suggests a vehicle system including: followed by a copy of amended claim 1. For the reasons stated above in Examiner’s response to arguments as well as the expanded explanations in the rejection sections in this office action, this assertion is not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the Bowen Customs reference applied in the last office action does not qualify as prior art, this argument is persuasive and rejections based upon this reference are hereby withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph D. Pape whose telephone number is (571)272-6664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7 AM-3:30 PM.
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.
/Joseph D. Pape/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612