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 § 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 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lund et al. (US 5971469 A) in view of Edwards (US 20090173759 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lund discloses a cargo bed (Lund, 14 in Fig. 3) of a vehicle (Lund, truck 12 in Fig. 3) for transporting objects (Lund, Fig. 3, can transport objects by having the objects stored in the bed), comprising: a periphery (Lund, Fig. 3, periphery of bed 14 defined by tailgate, sidewalls, and the front cab), opposing sidewalls (Lund, 18 and 20 in Fig. 3) extending upwardly from the periphery, each of the opposing sidewalls having an interior surface and an exterior surface (Lund, Fig. 3, sides facing the bed and the sides facing outside of the vehicle) defining a side of the cargo bed which extends from a passenger compartment (Lund, 24 in Fig. 3; external sides of the bed sidewalls extends from the cab to the rear end) to an opposite end (Lund, Fig. 3, rear end) of the cargo bed, each sidewall having an upper surface (Lund, see annotated Fig. 3) that descends from the passenger compartment and from the opposite end of the cargo bed to form a horizontal surface therebetween (Lund, Fig. 3, the front and rear ends are higher and descends down to a middle horizontal portion); and a bed lid (Lund, 44 in Fig. 2) hingedly (Lund, hinge 46 in Fig. 1) joined to the cargo bed abutting the passenger compartment (Lund, Fig. 3, abutting by hinged to the rear window of the passenger compartment), the bed lid having lid sidewalls (Lund, see annotated Fig. 3) conforming (Lund, Fig. 1 and annotated Fig. 3, both have similar contours that match when the lid is closed) to the sidewall; wherein the bed lid is pivotable between an open position (Lund, Fig. 3) and a closed position (Lund, Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
428
695
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 Annotated Fig. 3 from Lund
Lund fails to disclose a cargo floor, having the periphery, forming a spare tire cavity; and the lid sidewalls conforming to the opposing sidewalls.
Edwards teaches a cargo floor (Edwards, 44 in Fig. 1), having a periphery (Edwards, Fig. 1, peripheral edges of the floor), forming a spare tire cavity (Edwards, Fig. 1, spare tire 22 stored underneath).
Edwards is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of truck cargo bed as Lund.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bed as taught by Lund to incorporate the teachings of Edwards with a reasonable expectation of success and have a cargo floor forming a spare tire cavity. Doing so provides a supporting surface for cargo and creates a protected space for spare tire storage.
The combination of Lund in view of Edwards teaches the claimed invention except for the lid sidewalls conforming to the opposing sidewalls. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the one lid sidewall on one side to the opposite side such that both lid sidewalls conform to the opposing sidewalls, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), MPEP 2144.04 VI. Doing so allows both sides to be seal properly and creates symmetrical design to enhance aesthetics.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Lund in view of Edwards teaches the cargo bed of claim 1, further comprising a rear bumper (Lund, see annotated Fig. 3) with bumper step slats (Lund, see annotated Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Lund in view of Edwards teaches the cargo bed of claim 1, further comprising a storage cover (Edwards, 46 in Fig. 1, pivotable) movably mounted over the spare tire cavity.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lund in view of Edwards teaches the cargo bed of claim 1, wherein the bed lid further comprises a lid handle (Lund, Fig. 2, rear portion of the lid 44, allows gripping for opening or closing; described in Col. 4 lines 64-65).
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Lund in view of Edwards as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Burch (US 6568739 B1).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Lund in view of Edwards teaches the cargo bed of claim 1, but fails to teach the bed lid further comprises a rear panel with a license plate mount.
Burch teaches the bed lid further comprises a rear panel (Burch, 74 in Fig. 3) with a license plate mount (Burch, 75 in Fig. 3).
Burch is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of truck cargo bed with lid as Lund in view of Edwards.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bed as taught by Lund in view of Edwards to incorporate the teachings of Burch with a reasonable expectation of success and have the tailgate connected to the lid such that the lid comprises a rear panel with a license plate mount. Doing so allows rear access to the bed by a single step of opening the lid, without having to open the tailgate and the lid in two steps, thus providing more convenience and efficiency. Also allows easier access to the cargo bed interior area since the tailgate would not be in the way at the rear opening.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Lund in view of Edwards teaches the cargo bed of claim 1, wherein the bed lid further comprises a latch (Lund, 52 in Fig. 1) operative to reversibly engage with a latch receiver (Lund, 66 in Fig. 4; Col. 3 lines 44-46).
The combination of Lund in view of Edwards fails to teach the latch receiver is formed in the cargo floor.
Burch teaches latch receiver formed in the cargo floor (Burch, 76 in Fig. 3 is on the cargo floor 15).
Burch is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of truck cargo bed with lid as Lund in view of Edwards.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bed as taught by Lund in view of Edwards to incorporate the teachings of Burch with a reasonable expectation of success and have the tailgate connected to the lid such that the latch receiver is formed in the floor. Doing so allows rear access to the bed by a single step of opening the lid, without having to open the tailgate and the lid in two steps, thus providing more convenience and efficiency. Also allows easier access to the cargo bed interior area since the tailgate would not be in the way at the rear opening.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Lund in view of Edwards as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miller (US 20090195007 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Lund in view of Edwards teaches the cargo bed of claim 1, but fails to teach an extension panel slidably mounted within a rear of the cargo floor.
Miller teaches an extension panel (Miller, 50 in Fig. 3) slidably mounted (Miller, Fig. 2-3) within a rear (Miller, Fig. 2-3, at rear of floor when stowed) of the cargo floor.
Miller is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of truck cargo bed as Lund in view of Edwards.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bed as taught by Lund in view of Edwards to incorporate the teachings of Miller with a reasonable expectation of success and have an extension panel. Doing so allows additional cargo floor storage area to increase cargo capacity.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Lund in view of Edwards and Miller teaches the cargo bed of claim 7, wherein the extension panel further comprises a handle (Miller, 54 in Fig. 3, there’s a handle on the extension panel).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Lund in view of Edwards and Miller as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Scarberry et al. (US 7007995 B1).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Lund in view of Edwards and Miller teaches the cargo bed of claim 7, but fails to teach a tailgate extender removably mountable to the opposing sidewalls.
Scarberry teaches a tailgate extender (Scarberry, 60 in Fig. 5) removably mountable (Scarberry, Col. 6 lines 49-50) to the opposing sidewalls (Scarberry, Fig. 5, attached at opposing sidewalls).
Scarberry is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of truck cargo bed as Lund in view of Edwards and Miller.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bed as taught by Lund in view of Edwards and Miller to incorporate the teachings of Scarberry with a reasonable expectation of success and have a tailgate extender. Doing so provides a rear stop that prevents cargo from falling off the cargo bed; and removability allows other functions such as cargo dividers.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references that are not relied upon all disclose truck cargo bed lids.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wenwei Zhuo whose telephone number is (571)272-5564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. EST.
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.
/WENWEI ZHUO/Examiner, Art Unit 3612