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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 06 June 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN 202310662244.5 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 uses the prohibited term “discloses” in line 1. 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 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.
Claim 23 is 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.
Claim 23 claims, “a gasket (1101) on the cab” in lines 2-3, and then further limits the invention by stating, “the car cover can rest on the gasket (1101) of the car cab” in line 10. The specification does not use or define the word “gasket” in the entirely of the body. The specification does not use the numeral “1101” anywhere in its entirety either. Additionally, there is no gasket or numeral 1101 shown in the drawings which would give the Examiner an indication of what the applicant is claiming. As such, the written description requirement is not met, and the claim has not been examined with respect to the prior art due to the unknown expanse of the langue.
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 1-23 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 is replete with improper claim punctuation and format. For instance, lines 3, 4 and 5 all start with a capitalized “The”. Claims are to be written as one single sentence with the proper punctuation and capitalization throughout.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the car body" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-5 all start with, “A new embedded support structure according to claim…”. As each of these claims is dependent upon another claim which has already set out “a new embedded support structure”, they should all read, “The embedded support structure of claim …”.
Claim 6 is replete with improper claim punctuation and format. For instance, lines 3 and 4 all start with a capitalized “The”. Claims are to be written as one single sentence with the proper punctuation and capitalization throughout.
Claims 7-9 all start with, “A new embedded support structure according to claim…”. As each of these claims is dependent upon another claim which has already set out “a new embedded support structure”, they should all read, “The embedded support structure of claim …”.
Claim 7 contains improper claim punctuation and format. For instance, line 5 starts with a capitalized “The”. Claims are to be written as one single sentence with the proper punctuation and capitalization throughout.
Claim 8, line 5 recites, “a limiting member”. As the limitation has been previously set out, it should read, the limiting member”.
Claim 10 is replete with improper claim punctuation and format. For instance, lines 3, 4 and 5 all start with a capitalized “The”. Claims are to be written as one single sentence with the proper punctuation and capitalization throughout.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the car body" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 11-13 all start with, “A new embedded support structure according to claim…”. As each of these claims is dependent upon another claim which has already set out “a new embedded support structure”, they should all read, “The embedded support structure of claim …”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the profile" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear to what the applicant is referring with the term “profile”. As it cannot be ascertained, the language has not been treated to a rejection under the prior art.
Claim 14 is replete with improper claim punctuation and format. For instance, lines 3 and 5 all start with a capitalized “The”. Claims are to be written as one single sentence with the proper punctuation and capitalization throughout.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the car body" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 15-22 all start with, “A new embedded support structure according to claim…”. As each of these claims is dependent upon another claim which has already set out “a new embedded support structure”, they should all read, “The embedded support structure of claim …”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the support bar head fixing block" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17, line 5 recites, “a limiting member”. As the limitation has been previously set out, it should read, the limiting member”.
Claim 18 contains improper claim punctuation and format. For instance, line 6 starts with a capitalized “The”. Claims are to be written as one single sentence with the proper punctuation and capitalization throughout.
Claim 20 contains improper claim punctuation and format. For instance, lines 4 and 8 start with a capitalized “The”. Claims are to be written as one single sentence with the proper punctuation and capitalization throughout.
Claim 23 is replete with improper claim punctuation and format. For instance, lines 4, 6 and 10 all start with a capitalized “The”. Claims are to be written as one single sentence with the proper punctuation and capitalization throughout.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the cab" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the car body" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the car cover" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dylewski (US 11,718,166).
Regarding Claim 1, Dylewski discloses a support structure including a limiting member (350), a support member (314) and a limiting block (326); The limiting member is connected to a car body (Figs. 41 and 42); the limiting block (326) is connected to a car cover; the support member (314) includes a first support bar head and a second support bar head (Fig. 42), the first support bar head is removably connected to the limiting member, the second support bar head is connected to the limiting block.
Regarding Claim 2, the car cover is provided with a slider groove (pinch latch groove running horizontally across cover; Fig. 42), the limiting block (326) is provided in the slider groove (Fig. 42), the second support bar head is connected to the limiting block, the first support bar head is connected to the limiting member (Fig. 41 and 42).
Regarding Claim 3, the limiting member (350) includes a base (354), a fixing buckle (head of stud 350) and a support part (336; Fig. 41), the fixing buckle and the support part are both connected to the base (Fig. 41), the base is connected to the car body; the first support bar head is connected to the support part (Fig. 41).
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-8, 10, 14, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wu (US 2023/0382208).
Regarding Claim 1, Wu discloses a support structure including a limiting member (4), a support member (3.1A) and a limiting block (discussed but not numbered; paragraph 0043); the limiting member is connected to a car body (Fig. 1); the limiting block is connected to a car cover; the support member (3.1A) includes a first support member head and a second support member head (Figs. 2 and 8), the first support bar head is removably connected to the limiting member, the second support bar head is connected to the limiting block.
Regarding Claims 4, 8 and 17, the car cover includes a large front bar (2.4) and a plurality of plate bodies (2.1-2.3), two adjacent plate bodies are connected to each other by an intermediate bar assembly (hinge bars), the large front bar and one of the plate bodies are connected by a rotating shaft structure (hinge; see Fig. 1), the large front bar (2.4) is connected to the limiting member (4), the limiting member (4) is at a distance greater than or equal to the width of the intermediate bar assembly from the rotating shaft structure (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 6, Wu discloses a support structure including a limiting member (4), a webbing base (discussed but not numbered; paragraph 0043) and a webbing (3.1A); the limiting member (4) is connected to the car body (Fig. 1); the webbing (3.1) is connected to the car cover by the webbing base (Fig. 1), the webbing (3.1A) is connected with a webbing buckle (3.11), the webbing buckle is adapted to the limiting member (Figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding Claim 7, the limiting member (4) includes a base (4.2), a fixing buckle (4.11) and a support part (4.21), the fixing buckle (4.11) and the support part (4.21) are connected to the base (4.2; Fig. 2), the base is connected to the car body; the fixing buckle (4.11) is adapted to the webbing buckle (3.11).
Regarding Claim 10, Wu discloses a large front bar sheet metal (2.4), a support bar (3.1A) and a limiting block (discussed but not numbered; paragraph 0043); the large front bar sheet metal (2.4) is connected to the car body (Fig. 1); the limiting block is connected to the car cover (Fig. 1); the support bar (3.1A) includes a first support bar head and a second support bar head, the first support bar head is connected to the large front bar sheet metal (2.4; via block 4.1A), the second support bar head is connected to the limiting block.
Regarding Claim 14, Wu discloses a support bar (3.1A), a limiting member (4), a limiting block (discussed but not numbered; paragraph 0043) and an insertion buckle fixing end (4.21; Fig. 3); the insertion buckle fixing end is connected to the car body (Fig. 1), the insertion buckle fixing end is provided with a insertion buckle fixing end spacer (4.2); the limiting member (4) is connected to the car body, the limiting block is connected to the car cover, the support bar (3.1A) includes a first support bar head (3.11) and a second support bar head, the first support bar head is removably connected to the limiting member (4), the second support bar head is connected to the limiting block.
Regarding Claim 16, the car cover is connected to the car body by a clamp assembly (Fig. 9), the car cover is connected to a support bar support member (limiting block), the clamp assembly is connected to a support bar head fixing block (Fig. 10), the first support bar head is connected to the support bar head fixing block, the second support bar head is connected to the support bar support member.
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) 5, 9, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu as applied to claims 4, 8 and 17 above, and further in view of Wang (US 2024/0286470).
Regarding Claims 5, 9 and 18, Wu discloses the use of hinges between panels, but does not detail the construction. Wang discloses a cover for a truck bed, wherein multiple panels are connected via rotating shaft structure (82; Fig. 4), which includes a rotating shaft hook (near 92 in Fig. 4) and a rotating shaft post (inserted in hook; Fig. 4), the rotating shaft post is connected to a front bar, the rotating shaft hook is connected to a plate body, the rotating shaft hook rotates with the rotating shaft post as its center; the rotating shaft hook is provided with an end, the rotating shaft post is provided with a stopper the stopper is used to limit the end (see annotated figure below). Be fore the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the hinge structure of Wang on the panels of Wu in order to have a robust, known hinge system including stops to limit rotation of the panels to protect the system.
PNG
media_image1.png
354
443
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 19, Wu discloses the intermediate bar assembly is connected to the plate body by a profile (Fig. 4; plate bodies connected via U-shaped profiles). The use of glue or rivets to attach the body in not only well-known in the art, but customary such that one having ordinary skill in the art would readily choose and adhesive, glue, fastener or other similar attachment feature to ensure the full integration of the plate and the hinge.
Claim(s) 12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu as applied to claims 10 and 14 above, and further in view of Dylewski.
Regarding Claims 12 and 15, Wu does not appear to disclose the construction or attachment of the limiting block. Dylewski discloses the car cover is provided with a slider groove (pinch latch groove running horizontally across cover; Fig. 42), a limiting block (326) is provided in the slider groove (Fig. 42). 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 slider groove mounting, as disclosed by Dylewski, on the cover of Wu in order to allow the attachment point to be adjusted as needed depending upon the position of the cover and the cargo contents to be transported.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 20-22 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 11, the use of a waist hole in the large front bar sheet metal connected with a plum nut, is novel.
Regarding Claim 20, the unique hinge assembly of claim 20 in conjunction with the preceding claims in the chain, is novel.
Regarding Claims 21 and 22, the use of the hinge assemblies with the specific degrees of rotation, in conjunction with the depending claims, is novel.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON S DANIELS whose telephone number is (571)270-1167. The examiner can normally be reached 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, 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 DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612