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. 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. Specification Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it grossly exceeds the 150 word limit as set out in the MPEP. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-10 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 1 recites the limitation "the front car cab" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, lines 6-7 recites, “a large front bar rotating shaft”. As this limitation has been previously set out, it should read, “ the large front bar rotating shaft”. Claim 1, line 7 recites, “a second plate body”. As this limitation has been previously set out, it should read, “ the second plate body”. Claims 2-10 all recite, “A hard flipping car cover” in line 1. As the dependent claims all refer back to another previous claim, the language should read, “ The hard flipping car cover”. Claim 2 recites the limitation "the cargo hopper" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4, line 3 recites, “The two first side bars”. As this is mid-claim, it should read, “ the first two side bars”. Claim 4, line 7, the second iteration of “the intermediate mounting groove (2101) is “C” shaped” should be deleted. Claim 4 recites the limitation "the side bar convex block" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 recites the limitation "the cargo hopper" in line 2 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim(s) 1 , 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai (US 2024/0198772) in view of Wilson (US 7,320,494). Regarding Claim 1, Cai discloses a hard flipping car cover, wherein, it includes a front bar system (1 1 ) , a first plate body, a second plate body, a third plate body and a supporting system (see Fig. 1) , the supporting system includes, a buffer block ( 12 ) and a large front bar rotating shaft, and the buffer block ( 12 ) is connected to the front bar system (Fig. 2) , the first plate body is rotatably connected to the front bar system by a large front bar rotating shaft ( Fig. 7) , the first plate body is rotatably connected to a second plate body by a first rotating shaft system (2), the second plate body is rotatably connected to the third plate body by a second rotating shaft system (3). It is unclear if Cai discloses the use of a buffer plate attached to a cab of the vehicle. Wilson discloses a rigid folding cover for a vehicle including a buffer plate attached to a cab of the vehicle (see Figs. 9E and 9F; cover is folded to the cab to be in contact with the buffer plate at the top of the cab). Before the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the buffer plate of Wilson with the cover of Cai in order to keep the cover from directly contacting the cab thereby keeping the cover from damaging the paint and bodywork of the cab when folded. Regarding Claim 9, Cai discloses the buffer block includes a buffer pad ( 12 ) and a fixing pad ( 11; Fig. 2) , the fixing pad ( 11 ) is connected to the front bar system, the buffer pad ( 12 ) is connected to the fixing pad ( 11 ), the buffer pad is of "L" type structure. Regarding Claim 10, Cai discloses a guide rail (701) , a clamp system (Fig. 8) and a lock system (Fig. 10) , the guide rail is connected to the cargo hopper through the clamp system, the lock system includes a cylindrical lock bolt head ( 92 ) and a lock bolt, the lock bolt is connected to the car cover, the cylindrical lock bolt head is connected to the cargo hopper or to the guide rail through the clamp system. Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai and Wilson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang (US 2024/0286470). Regarding Claim 2, It is unclear as to the formation of the support pole of Cai. Wang discloses a supporting pole assembly, the supporting pole assembly includes a supporting pole ( 35 ), a supporting pole head ( end attached to cover plate; Fig. 12) and a supporting block ( 63 ), the supporting pole head is connected to the plate body through a supporting base ( Fig. 12 ), the supporting base is set parallel to the plate body, the supporting block ( 63 ) includes a fixing section ( see annotated Fig. below) , an inclined plate, a supporting groove ( 6301 ) and a transition section, the fixing section is connected to the cargo hopper (via bracket 62) , the inclined plate is connected to the fixing section through the transition section, the inclined plate is inclined approximately 15-25° with respect to the fixing section, the inclined plate is provided with a "U" shaped supporting groove ( 6301 ), the supporting pole ( 35 ) is snap fitted into the supporting groove ( Fig. 13 ). Before the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the support pole/bracket assembly of Wang on the combination of Cai and Wilson as an easy to use way to support and secure the plates when not in use as a covering. Regarding Claim 3, Wang discloses a large front bar including a top pillar ( see annotated Fig. below ) and a front bar rotating center , the front bar rotating center is connected to the top pillar by rotation, the front bar rotating center is connected to the first plate body by a connecting arm, the front bar rotating center is provided with a first limiting section, the top pillar is rounded and the top pillar is provided with a second limiting section which is adapted to the first limiting section . Claim(s) 4- 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai and Wilson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of He (US 2021/0379970). Regarding Claim s 4 and 7 , the full construction of the hinges of Cai is unclear. He discloses a hinge system for a three fold cover of a vehicle including, the first rotating shaft system includes a first intermediate rotating bar (2 8 ) and two first side bars (23), The two first side bars ( 30, 35; Fig. 6 ) are respectively connected to the first intermediate rotating bar by rotation, the first side bar is provided with side bar mounting grooves ( 40 ), the side bar mounting groove is of "C" shaped (Fig. 6) , the first intermediate rotating bar is provided with an intermediate mounting groove ( at 17 and 18; Fig. 6 ) at each end, the intermediate mounting groove is "C" shaped, the two first side bars are connected to the first intermediate bar by a first connecting strip ( 16 ), the first connecting strip ( 16 ) is made of rubber, the first connecting strip includes a first connecting surface and two first feet (2 2; Fig. 4 ), two said first feet are connected by the first connecting surface, the two first feet are located in the side bar mounting groove ( Fig. 5 ) and the intermediate mounting groove respectively, a side bar convex block is connected to the north of the side bar mounting groove ( Fig. 5) , the first intermediate rotating bar is provided with an intermediate convex block ( Fig. 5 near 16) , the intermediate convex block is connected to the north of the intermediate mounting groove, the intermediate convex block is longer than the side bar convex block. Before the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the double hinge of He on the combination of Cai and Wilson as a known way to allow the folding stack to have additional room between the plates such that when folded, the plate s would all stack together in a flat stack as taught by He. Regarding Claim 5, He discloses the first rotating shaft system is connected with a left end cap, a right end cap and an intermediate end cap at each end (see Fig.9 for exploded view of three caps per side) , the left end cap and right end cap are screwed to the two first side bars ( at 42 and 43 ) respectively, the intermediate end cap is screwed to the first intermediate rotating bar ( 45; Fig. 9 ), the left end cap is provided with a left end cap top panel, the right end cap is provided with a right end cap top panel, the intermediate end cap is provided with an intermediate end cap top panel, the left end cap top panel, right end cap top panel and middle end cap top panel are all provided on the upper side of the first connecting surface ( see Fig. 1; end caps sit on top surface at each side ). Regarding Claim 6, the first connecting strip is of "π" shape (Fig. 4) , the first base foot ( 22 ) is connected to the first connecting surface by a connection member (Fig. 4) , the size of the first base foot (2 2 ) is larger than the size of the connection member. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 8 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JASON S DANIELS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1167 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Thursday 7:00 am - 5:00 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Amy Weisberg can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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 DANIELS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612