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 § 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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the support" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested the limitation be changed to “the support frame”.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 15, 17, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimamura et al. (US Patent application Publication 2009/0195049) in view of Nodier (US Patent 5,752,736).
Re claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 9-11, 15, and 17, Shimamura et al. discloses a utility vehicle (shown in figure 1) comprising a rollover protective structure (ROPS) (30, figure 2) that defines a riding space; a cargo bed (40, figure 2) that is located rearward of the ROPS; a chassis that supports the cargo bed; and a dumper that tilts the cargo bed relative to the chassis.
Shimamura et al. does not disclose a support frame to support a cargo bed cover that covers the cargo bed wherein the support frame is supported by the cargo bed and independent from the ROPS, the support frame includes a cover support cargo bed cover, the cover support being vertically displaceable, the support frame being removably supported, the support from being provided to the cargo bed, the support frame including a front support column extending vertically, the cargo bed cover including a front cover portion that is located forward of the front support column and partitions the space between the cargo bed cover and the ROPS, the cargo bed cover including a flap cover that is flappably supported by the support frame, the bed over including a side flap cover that is rotatable around an axis along a front-rear direction, the cargo bed cover including a vertical cover that covers a side or a rear of the cargo bed, and the vertical cover includes a window, the cargo bed cover being changeable between a cover state and a top opening state while being attached to the support frame, the cover state being a state in which the cargo bed cover covers a top of the cargo bed, the top opening state being a state in which the cargo bed cover covers a smaller range of the top of the cargo bed than in the cover state, and the cargo bed cover remains supported by the support frame in both the cover state and the top opening state.
Nodier teaches a support frame (200, figure 2) to support a cargo bed cover (102, figure 1) that covers a cargo bed (101) wherein the support frame is supported by the cargo bed and independent from a ROPS (there is no suggestion or teaching in the references that the support frame requires additional support from a ROPS) , the support frame includes a cover support (206), a cargo bed cover (102, figure 1), the cover support being vertically displaceable (206 in figure 9 is shown as being vertically displaced when collapsed), the support frame being removably supported (see column 1, lines 44-53), the support frame being provided to the cargo bed (101), the support frame including a front support column extending vertically (202, figure 2), the cargo bed cover including a front cover portion (see the annotated figure below) that is located forward of the front support column and partitions the space between the cargo bed cover and vehicle cab, the cargo bed cover including a flap cover that is flappably supported by the support frame, the cargo bed cover including a vertical cover (see the annotated figure below) that covers a side or a rear of the cargo bed, and the vertical cover includes a window (115, figure 1), the cargo bed cover being changeable between a cover state and a top opening state while being attached to the support frame, the cover state being a state in which the cargo bed cover covers a top of the cargo bed (shown in figure 1), the top opening state (as detailed in column 2, line 66 to column 3, line 2, the back portion of the shell has a flap which can be lifted to access the truck bed) being a state in which the cargo bed cover covers a smaller range of the top of the cargo bed than in the cover state (the top of the cargo bed is at least partially accessible when the flap is in the open position) , the cargo bed cover remains supported by the support frame in both the cover state and the top opening state (the cargo bed cover is not removed from the support frame when the flap is utilized).
PNG
media_image1.png
636
951
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a utility vehicle, such as that disclosed by Shimamura et al., to have a support frame to support a cargo bed cover that covers the cargo bed wherein the support frame is supported by the cargo bed and independent from the ROPS, the support frame including a cover support cargo bed cover, the cover support being vertically displaceable, the support frame being removably supported, the support from being provided to the cargo bed, the support frame including a front support column extending vertically, the cargo bed cover including a front cover portion that is located forward of the front support column and partitions the space between the cargo bed cover and the ROPS, the cargo bed cover including a flap cover that is flappably supported by the support frame, the cargo bed cover including a vertical cover that covers a side or a rear of the cargo bed, the vertical cover including a window, the cargo bed cover being changeable between a cover state and a top opening state while being attached to the support frame, the cover state being a state in which the cargo bed cover covers a top of the cargo bed, the top opening state being a state in which the cargo bed cover covers a smaller range of the top of the cargo bed than in the cover state and the cargo bed cover remains supported by the support frame in both the cover state and the top opening state, as taught by Nodier, such that the ROPS is not located on a rotational trajectory of the support frame and the cargo bed in advance and the rotational trajectory includes a portion through which the support frame and the cargo bed cover pass while the cargo bed is being tilted relative to the chassis by the dumper (note that this would be a necessary result of the proposed combination as the device would be inoperable otherwise and one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably be able to make the combination work according to the claim limitations by simply adjusting the dimensions of the cargo bed cover), with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to protect the contents of the bed from inclement weather (see Nodier, column 1, lines 10-17).
Re claims 20-22, Shimamura et al. discloses cargo bed cover structure for a utility vehicle including a rollover protective structure (ROPS) (30, figure 2) that defines a riding space and a cargo bed (40, figure 2) that is located rearward of the ROPS.
Shimamura et al. does not disclose a cargo bed cover structure comprising a support frame that is attachable to the utility vehicle; and a cargo bed cover that is supported by the support frame and covers the cargo bed, wherein the support frame includes a front support column and a rear support column, and the bottom of the front support column and the bottom of the rear support column are connected to the cargo bed, the ROPS is not located on a rotational trajectory of the support frame and the cargo bed cover in advance, the support frame including a front support column and a rear support column, and the bottom of the front support column and the bottom of the rear support column being connected to the cargo bed.
Nodier teaches a cargo bed cover structure comprising a support frame (200, figure 2) that is attachable to a vehicle; and a cargo bed cover (102, figure 1) that is supported by the support frame and covers the cargo bed, wherein the support frame includes a front support column and a rear support column (see the annotated figure below), and the bottom of the front support column and the bottom of the rear support column are connected to the cargo bed (by 205, figure 2), the support frame including a front support column and a rear support column (see the annotated figure below), and the bottom of the front support column and the bottom of the rear support column being connected to the cargo bed (by 205, figure 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
693
945
media_image2.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 cargo bed cover structure, such as that disclosed by Shimamura et al., to have a support frame that is attachable to the utility vehicle, and a cargo bed cover that is supported by the support frame and covers the cargo bed, wherein the support frame includes a front support column and a rear support column, and the bottom of the front support column and the bottom of the rear support column are connected to the cargo bed, the ROPS is not located on a rotational trajectory of the support frame and the cargo bed cover in advance (this is inherent to the combination), the support frame including a front support column and a rear support column, and the bottom of the front support column and the bottom of the rear support column being connected to the cargo bed, as taught by Nodier, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to protect the contents of the bed from inclement weather (see Nodier, column 1, lines 10-17).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimamura et al. (US Patent application Publication 2009/0195049) in view of Nodier (US Patent 5,752,736), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Woodard et al (US Patent 10,145,140).
Shimamura in view of Nodier discloses all the limitations of the claims, as applied above, except for a lock that locks the support frame to the ROPS, the lock locking the support frame to a rear portion of the ROPS.
Woodard et al. teaches a lock (mount 52, figure 1; not that applicant’s own “lock” can be a screw and thus the term “lock” has been interpreted broadly in light of applicant’s specification) that locks a support frame to a ROPS, the lock (mount 52, figure 1) locking the support frame to a rear portion of the ROPS (16a, figure 1).
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 utility vehicle, such as that disclosed by the combination of Shimamura et al. in view of Nodier, to have a lock that locks a support frame to a ROPS, the lock locking the support frame to a rear portion of the ROPS, as taught by Woodard et al., in order to further support the support frame during travel to keep the frame from inadvertently being dislodged from the vehicle.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimamura et al. (US Patent application Publication 2009/0195049) in view of Nodier (US Patent 5,752,736), as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Hoffman (US Patent 6,824,192) and Schwebach (US Patent Application Publication 2016/0160522).
Shimamura et al. in view of Nodier discloses all the limitations of the claims, as applied above, except for the cargo bed including upward opening holes, the support frame includes vertically extending support columns, and a lower end of each of the support columns being inserted into a corresponding one of the holes and supported, the holes are in the left wall and the right wall, and amount of insertion of the support columns into the holes is changeable and a height of the support frame is changeable y changing the amount of insertion.
Shimamura et al. additional teaches the cargo bed includes a mount, a left wall, a right wall, and a rear wall, the left wall, right wall, and the rear wall protruding upward from the mount, the rear wall being openable and closable around an axis along the left-right direction at the bottom of the rear wall.
PNG
media_image3.png
738
704
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
676
749
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Hoffman teaches the cargo bed including upward opening holes (35, figure 1), the support frame includes vertically extending support columns (18), and a lower end of each of the support columns being inserted into a corresponding one of the holes and supported (as shown in figure 1), and the holes are in a left wall and the right wall (as shown in figure 1).
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 utility vehicle, such as that disclosed by Shimamura et al. in view of Nodier above, to have the cargo bed including upward opening holes, the support frame includes vertically extending support columns, and a lower end of each of the support columns being inserted into a corresponding one of the holes and supported, and the holes are in a left wall and the right wall, as taught by Hoffman, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to assist in positioning the support frame in a defined position on the cargo bed easily and repeatably.
Schwebach teaches an amount of insertion of support columns (28, figure 3) into holes (the holes of 41) being changeable (by adjustment up and down of the support columns and securement by the set screw 42, see paragraph 0026) and a height of the support frame being changeable by changing the amount of insertion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify a cargo bed, such as that disclosed by Shimamura et al. in view of Nodier and Hoffman above, to further have an amount of insertion of the support columns into holes be changeable, and a height of the support frame being changeable by changing the amount of insertion, as further taught by Schwebach, with a reasonable expectations of success, in order to accurately adjust the support columns relative to each other to keep the device level and to better match the cargo cover to the vehicle.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimamura et al. (US Patent application Publication 2009/0195049) in view of Nodier (US Patent 5,752,736), as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view Bourcier (US Patent 8,454,076).
Shimamura et al. in view of Nodier disclose all the limitations of the claims, as applied to claim 10 above, except the flap cover including a side flap cover that is rotatable around an axis along a front rear direction, the side flap cover including an upper end part, the upper end part including a hinge supported to be rotatable by the support, the support frame including a first support that supports the side flap cover in a first state in which a side of the cargo bed is open and a second support that supports the side flap cover in a second state in which the side of the cargo bed is covered, the first support supports the side flap cover in a state in which the side flap cover covers a top of the cargo bed.
Shimamura et al. further discloses the support frame includes a first support (206 in figure 2 that is on the same side as 115 in figure 1) that supports the side flap cover.
Bourcier teaches including a side flap cover (the rolled up flap in figure 7) that is rotatable around an axis along a front rear direction, the side flap cover including an upper end part, the upper end part including a hinge (a living hinge created by the attachment of the side flap cover to the rest of the cover) supported to be rotatable by the first support (the living hinge is indirectly supported in by first support such that it is able to rotate), the side flap cover (the rolled up flap in figure 7) in a first state in which a side of the cargo bed is open (the rolled up state in figure 7), the side flap cover in a second state in which the side of the cargo bed is covered (as in figure 2), and the side flap covering a top of the cargo bed (as can be seen in figures 2 and 7, the flap panel extends over a top of the cargo bed onto the roof of the 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 utility, such as that disclosed by the combination of Shimamura et al. in view of Nodier above, to have the flap cover including a side flap cover that is rotatable around an axis along a front rear direction, the side flap cover include an upper end part, the upper end part including a hinge supported to be rotatable by the support, the support frame include a first support that supports the side flap cover in a first state in which a side of the cargo bed is open and a second support that supports the side flap cover in a second state in which the side of the cargo bed is covered, the first support supports the side flap cover in a state in which the side flap cover covers a top of the cargo bed, as taught by Bourcier, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to protect items carried by the bed, but also to allow access to retrieve items from the bed without having to remove the entire cover.
Claims 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimamura et al. (US Patent application Publication 2009/0195049) in view of Nodier (US Patent 5,752,736), as applied to claims 9 and 10 above, and further in view of Schwebach (US Patent 2013/0160522).
Re claim 14, Shimamura et al. in view of Nodier discloses all the limitations of the claims, as applied above, except for the flap cover including a rear flap cover that covers a rear of the cargo bed and flaps around an axis along a vehicle width direction or a vertical direction.
Schwebach teaches the flap cover including a rear flap cover (20) that covers a rear of a cargo bed and flaps around an axis along a vehicle width direction or a vertical direction.
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 utility vehicle, such as that disclosed by Shimamura et al. in view of Nodier above, to have the flap cover include a rear flap cover that covers a rear of the cargo bed and flaps around an axis along a vehicle width direction or a vertical direction, as taught by Schwebach, in order to allow the bed to be loaded with the cover in place.
Re claim 18, Shimamura et al. in view of Nodier discloses all the limitations of the claim, as applied above, except for the cargo bed cover including a cover main body that includes an opening and a door that blocks the opening of the cover main body so that the opening is openable and closable.
Schwebach teaches a cargo bed cover including a cover main body that includes an opening (the opening for the door 20) and a door (20) that blocks the opening of the cover main body so that the opening is openable and closable.
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 utility vehicle, such as that disclosed by Shimamura et al. in view of Nodier above, to have the cargo bed cover include a cover main body that includes an opening and a door that blocks the opening of the cover main body so that the opening is openable and closable, as taught by Schwebach, in order to allow the bed to be loaded with the cover in place.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimamura et al. (US Patent application Publication 2009/0195049) in view of Wernberg et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0306179) and Nodier (US Patent 5,752,736).
Shimamura et al. teaches a utility vehicle (1, figure 2) including a rollover protective structure (30, figure 2) (ROPS) that defines a riding space.
Shimamura et al. does not disclose a trailer towed by the utility vehicle the trailer comprising a cargo bed, a support frame to support a cargo bed cover that covers the cargo bed; and a towed part that is towed by the utility vehicle, a chassis that supports the cargo bed, and
a dumper that tilts the cargo bed relative to the chassis, wherein the support frame is supported by the cargo bed and independent from the ROPS.
Wernberg et al. teaches a trailer (100, figure 8) that can be towed by a utility vehicle, the trailer comprising a cargo bed (200, figure 8), and a towed part (430, figure 8 )that is towed by the utility vehicle, a chassis (300, figure 13) that supports the cargo bed, and a dumper (600, figure 13) that tilts the cargo bed relative to the chassis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a utility vehicle, such as that taught by Shimamura et al., with a trailer that can be towed by the utility vehicle, the trailer comprising a cargo bed, and a towed part that is towed by the utility vehicle, a chassis that supports the cargo bed, and a dumper that tilts the cargo bed relative to the chassis, as taught by Wernberg et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the utility vehicle to haul more cargo in a single trip compared to the utility vehicle without the trailer.
Nodier teaches a support frame (200, figure 2) to support a cargo bed cover (100, figure 1) that covers a cargo bed (101, figure 1), wherein the support frame is supported by the cargo bed and independent from a ROPS.
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 trailer towed by a utility vehicle, such as that disclosed by the combination of Shimamura et al. in view of Wernberg et al. above, to have a support frame to support a cargo bed cover that covers the cargo bed, wherein the support frame is supported by the cargo bed and independent from an ROPS, as taught by Nodier, such that the ROPS is not located on a rotational trajectory of the support frame and the cargo bed in advance and the rotational trajectory includes a portion through which the support frame and the cargo bed cover pass while the cargo bed is being tilted relative to the chassis by the dumper (note that this would be a necessary result of the proposed combination as the device would be inoperable otherwise and one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably be able to make the combination work according to the claim limitations by simply adjusting the dimensions of the cargo bed cover) with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to protect cargo carried by the trailer from precipitation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of Shimamura in view of Nodier would result in an interference between the ROPS and the cargo bed cover. It is the examiner's position that one of ordinary skill in the art when making the combination would only need to make the cargo bed cover slightly shorter than what applicant has shown by illustration on page 11 of their arguments to avoid such an interference (see the first annotated figure below). There is no reason one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily have to make the cargo bed cover extend to the height suggested by applicant's illustration. Additionally, it is not believed that applicant’s own originally drawn illustration accurately identified the rotational trajectory of the cargo bed structure as the potential interference point applicant identifies does not appear to be drawn as moving rotationally around the cargo bed pivot point. It appears that there would be no interference, even as Applicant has drawn the proposed combination, if the rotational trajectory is drawn correctly (see the second annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image5.png
539
874
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
542
874
media_image6.png
Greyscale
With regard to applicant’s other arguments addressing the limitations added to claims 8, 11, and 17, the examiner has amended the rejections above to explain how the original references or a new combination of references meet all of applicant’s new claim limitations.
Conclusion
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at (571) 272-5109. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON S MORROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
September 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights