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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 13, 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stetson (US 2,173,076).
Regarding Claim 1, Stetson discloses a pair of side panels 25; a back panel 35; a front panel 33; a roof panel 28, wherein each of the pair of side panels is attached to the front panel and the back panel along a side edge of the pair of side panels and to the roof panel to form an enclosure having an interior space (Fig. 3); at least one door 37 on at least one of the front and back panels; at least one window 38 on one of the pair of side panels; and a mounting system 60.
Regarding Claims 2 and 5, the mounting system 60 anchors posts 30 to the truck bed over a cargo area.
Regarding Claims 3, 4 and 14, the posts 20 of Stetson are between 4 and 8 (see Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 13, Stetson discloses a vehicle having a cargo bed (Fig. 1), the cargo bed having side walls, a tailgate at a first end and a wall of a passenger cabin at another end opposite the first end (Fig. 2); an enclosure formed from lightweight panels forming side wall 25 and horizontal panels forming a roof 28; at least one of the lightweight panels having a door 37 and at least one of the lightweight panels having a window 38; a mounting system 60 for mounting the enclosure on the sidewalls of the vehicle cargo bed and the mounting system including a number of posts.
Regarding Claim 16, the enclosure is made of framing elements of wood.
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stetson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cullen (US 11,458,906).
Regarding Claim 6, it is unclear if Stetson disclose the use of lights. Cullen discloses a cargo enclosure of a truck, including multiple lights to light the enclosure when in use. 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 lighting of Cullen in the enclosure of Stetson in order to provide a better sight environment for the users to enable better use during dark or lowlight conditions.
Claim(s) 7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stetson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dadone (US 2022/0324371).
Regarding Claim 7, Regarding Claim 7, Stetson discloses the use of ventilation, but does not expressly disclose a fan. Dadone discloses a cargo area cover in which a fan is included for ventilation (see paragraph 0076). 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 fan of Dadone in the cargo cover of Stetson in order to ventilate the area for better comfort when in use.
Regarding Claim 11, Dadone further discloses the use of a front door 134 to pass materials through (see Fig. 7).
Claim(s) 8, 9, 10, 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stetson as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Chen (CN 112896027).
Regarding Claims 8 and 15, Stetson does not appear to disclose the use of an aerodynamic portion on the front of the cover. Chen discloses a cargo area covering for a vehicle, in which an aerodynamic portion 5 is attached to the cover at the front of the roof (see Fig. 1). 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 aero cap of Chen on the device of Stetson in order to save fuel by improving the aero efficiency of the vehicle, thereby saving fuel and cost while travelling.
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, Chen discloses that in one embodiment (see Fig. 3) the angle of the aerodynamic device 5 is approximately 45 degrees, but that the angle is adjustable across a multitude of angles to fit the desired height and storage unit it is used with (see translation, paragraph 0020).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Stetson and Chen discloses an enclosure constructed from a plurality of lightweight panels held together by a plurality of framing elements (Stetson), horizontal panels (28; Stetson) forming a roof connected to the plurality of lightweight panels and a front and back panel forming the enclosure (33, 35; Stetson); a mounting system using a post anchor system and having between 4 and 8 posts for insertion into slots in the pickup truck bed (Stetson); at least one door (37: Stetson) provided in one of the front or back panels; at least one window (38; Stetson) provided in the plurality of lightweight panels; and an aerodynamic portion (Chen) removably attached to the enclosure.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stetson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bull (US 5,339,852).
Regarding Claim 12, Stetson does not appear to disclose the use of slots in the door. Bull discloses a cover for a truck box, including a door 50 which includes slots 60 for viewing. 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 slots of Bull on the door of Stetson as a way to see outside while seated within the enclosure.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5, 8, 11 and 13-17 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,752,917. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because;
Claims 1 and 13 of the present application is fully anticipated by Claim 1 of the ‘917 patent.
Claim 2 of the present application is fully anticipated by Claim 1 of the ‘917 patent.
Claims 3-5, 8, 11, 14, 15 and 17 of the present application is fully anticipated by Claim 5 of the ‘917 patent.
Claim 16 of the present application is fully anticipated by Claim 4 of the ‘917 patent.
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