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 § 102
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 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)(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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weldy (7,334,830).
Weldy discloses a tether assembly for use on a tonneau cover that selectively covers a cargo bed of a truck, as shown in Figures 1-7. The tether assembly comprises a tether hook attached at a first end of strap (42), as shown in Figure 5. The tether hook is selectively engageable with a rail (30) that is secured to a sidewall of the cargo box of the truck (10), as shown in Figure 5. A bracket (30) is attached to the tonneau cover assembly, as shown in Figure 5. In reference to claim 2, the strap (42) is made of a flexible material, as shown in Figures 4 and 5. In reference to claim 3, the tether hook is attached to the first end of the strap (42), as shown in Figure 5. In reference to claim 4, the bracket (30) is attached to the second end of the strap (42), as shown in Figure 5. The bracket (30) is configured to attach to at least one frame member (40) of the tonneau cover assembly, as shown in Figure 6.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Williamson et al. (US 2018/0147925).
Williamson et al. discloses a tie down block assembly (66) for use on a tonneau cover assembly (10) that selectively covers a cargo bed (12) of a truck (14), as shown in Figures 1 and 11-17. The tie down block assembly comprises a block at end (102) and an arm extending from the block to form end (104), as shown in Figure 17.
PNG
media_image1.png
311
387
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The arm includes a hook (106) extending therefrom, as shown in Figure 17. The hook (106) is spaced apart from the block, as shown in Figure 17. A bolt (108) includes a bolthead (110) and a shaft (112) extending from the bolthead (110) such that the bolthead is wider than a diameter of the shaft (112), as shown in Figure 17. The bolthead (110) of the bolt is configured to fit in an opening (100) of the tonneau cover assembly, as shown in Figure 17. The shaft (112) of the bolt is disposed in the block, as shown in Figure 17. A portion of the block is configured to abut a surface of a portion (64) of the tonneau cover assembly, as shown in Figure 17. The hook (106) is engageable with a structure (30) that is selected from the group consisting at least one of the tonneau cover assembly and the cargo box of the truck, as shown in Figure 17. In reference to claim 6, a threaded knob, the nut, engages threads on the shaft (112) of the bolt and engages the block of the tie down block assembly, as shown in Figure 17. In reference to claim 7, the shaft (112) of the bolt is disposed through the block, as shown in Figure 17.
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.
Claims 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weldy (7,334,830) in view of Williamson et al. (US 2018/0147925).
Weldy discloses a tether assembly for use on a tonneau cover that selectively covers a cargo bed of a truck, as shown in Figures 1-7. The tether assembly comprises a tether hook attached at a first end of strap (42), as shown in Figure 5. The tether hook is selectively engageable with a structure (30) of the tonneau cover assembly, as shown in Figure 5. A bracket (30) is attached to the tonneau cover assembly, as shown in Figure 5. In reference to claim 10, the strap (42) is made of a flexible material, as shown in Figures 4 and 5. In reference to claim 11, the tether hook is attached to the first end of the strap (42), as shown in Figure 5. In reference to claim 12, the bracket (30) is attached to the second end of the strap (42), as shown in Figure 5. The bracket (30) is configured to attach to at least one frame member (40) of the tonneau cover assembly, as shown in Figure 6. However, the cam lock clamps (50) of Weldy do not meet the limitations of the tie down assembly.
Williamson et al. teaches a tie down block assembly (66) for use on a tonneau cover assembly (10) that selectively covers a cargo bed (12) of a truck (14), as shown in Figures 1 and 11-17. The tie down block assembly comprises a block at end (102) and an arm extending from the block to form end (104), as shown in Figure 17.
PNG
media_image1.png
311
387
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The arm includes a hook (106) extending therefrom, as shown in Figure 17. The hook (106) is spaced apart from the block, as shown in Figure 17. A bolt (108) includes a bolthead (110) and a shaft (112) extending from the bolthead (110) such that the bolthead is wider than a diameter of the shaft (112), as shown in Figure 17. The bolthead (110) of the bolt is configured to fit in an opening (100) of the tonneau cover assembly, as shown in Figure 17. The shaft (112) of the bolt is disposed in the block, as shown in Figure 17. A portion of the block is configured to abut a surface of a portion (64) of the tonneau cover assembly, as shown in Figure 17. The hook (106) is engageable with a structure (30) that is selected from the group consisting at least one of the tonneau cover assembly and the cargo box of the truck, as shown in Figure 17. In reference to claim 13, a threaded knob, the nut, engages threads on the shaft (112) of the bolt and engages the block of the tie down block assembly, as shown in Figure 17. In reference to claim 14, the shaft (112) of the bolt is disposed through the block, as shown in Figure 17. In reference to claim 15, the portion of the block that is configured to abut the surface of the portion (64) of the tonneau cover assembly is configured to abut an underside surface of the portion of tonneau cover assembly, as shown in Figure 17.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the tie down assembly taught by Williamson et al. for the cam lock clamps of Weldy with a reasonable expectation for success as an alternate attachment mechanism that is simpler and less expensive to manufacture.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued the rejection of claim 1 by stating the new limitation of claim 1 is not disclosed. Weldy clearly discloses the tether hook is selectively engageable with a rail (30) secured to the sidewall of the cargo box of the truck, as shown in Figure 5. The engaged position is shown in solid line and the disengaged position is shown in dashed lines.
Applicant has argued Williamson et al. does not disclose the block is “configured to abut a surface of a portion of the tonneau cover”, as claimed in claim 5. The claim does not require the block to abut the surface. The block only needs to be capable of abutting the surface. The block of Williamson et al. is capable of abutting the surface since it pivots towards the tonneau cover for the stowed position, as shown in Figure 18. Further, the block does abut the surface of the tonneau cover when in the stowed position, as shown in Figure 18 and disclosed in paragraph [0066].
The rejection of claims 9-15 is argued based on the argument set forth with claim 5. Williamson et al. teaches the claimed feature, as discussed above in section 11. The rejection stands.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY A BLANKENSHIP whose telephone number is (571)272-6656. The examiner can normally be reached 7-4:30.
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.
GREGORY A. BLANKENSHIP
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3612
/GREGORY A BLANKENSHIP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612 February 10, 2026