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 Objections
Claim 3, 16, and 18 objected to because of the following informalities: “the load bar support” should read “a second load bar support”. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the “plate” is lacking a reference number. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the “plate” lacks a reference number. “the load bar support” in relation to the second low profile sliding standoff should read “ the second load bar support” or “a second load bar support”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(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) 1-6, 8, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stapleton et al. (Patent No. 5,688,087).
Re: claim 1, Stapleton et al. teaches a bedslide for use in a pickup truck cargo box (Fig. 1), the bedslide comprising: a deck (15); at least one longitudinally extending track (18) located adjacent the deck (side wall (12) is adjacent the deck (15)); at least one low profile load bar assembly (10) that is movably positionable (Col. 3 – lines 1-2 & 19-21) on the at least one longitudinally extending track (18); wherein the at least one low profile load bar assembly (10) includes at least one low profile sliding standoff (28) movably coupled (Col. 3 – lines 1-2 & 19-21) to the at least one longitudinally extending track (18); wherein the at least one low profile sliding standoff (28) includes at least one slider (Fig. 2 – 36) engageable with the at least one longitudinally extending track (18) and attached to a connector flange (Annotated Fig. 1 – flange portion); wherein the at least one low profile sliding standoff (28) further includes a load bar support (44) that extends from the connector flange (Annotated Fig. 1 – flange portion) adjacent the deck (15); wherein the load bar support (44) is located adjacent (See Fig. 2) to the at least one longitudinally extending track (18); and a load bar track (26); wherein the load bar support (44) includes a load bar opening (See Fig. 2) sized and configured to receive the load bar track (See Fig. 2 – 26 slots into 44); and wherein an end of the load bar track (26 – within 44) is located adjacent (See Fig. 2) the to the at least one longitudinally extending track (18).
PNG
media_image1.png
496
521
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re: claim 2, Stapleton et al. teaches wherein the load bar track (26) is located adjacent to the deck (15) (See Fig. 1).
Re: claim 3, Stapleton et al. teaches further comprising a second longitudinally extending track (16) extending about parallel with the at least one longitudinally extending track (18) (See Fig. 1 & 2), wherein the at least one low profile load bar assembly (10) includes a second low profile sliding standoff (30), wherein the [a second] load bar support (46) extends from the second low profile sliding standoff (30) and supports the load bar track (26) distal from the at least one low profile sliding standoff (28) (See Fig. 1 & 2).
Re: claim 4, Stapleton et al. teaches wherein the load bar track (26) includes a longitudinally extending channel (Annotated Fig. 1 – channel) configured to receive accessories.
It is noted by the examiner that the channel annotated by the examiner is the hollow portion of the bar, which runs longitudinally for the length of the bar. This hollow portion has the ability to receive accessories.
Re: claim 5, Stapleton et al. teaches wherein the at least one low profile sliding standoff (28) includes a plate (Annotated Fig. 1 – plate) that sits on top of the at least one longitudinally extending track (18) (See Annotated Fig. 1).
Re: claim 6, Stapleton et al. teaches wherein the plate (Annotated Fig. 1 – plate) extends from a top surface (Annotated Fig. 1 – top of load bar support) of the load bar support (44) (See Annotated Fig. 1).
Re: claim 8, Stapleton et al. teaches wherein the load bar support (44) includes a track tab (Fig. 2 – 50 & 54) that fits into a portion of the load bar track (26) to support the load bar track (See Fig. 2).
Re: claim 11, Stapleton et al. teaches a bedslide for use in a pickup truck cargo box (Fig. 1), the bedslide comprising: a deck (15); at least one longitudinally extending track (18) located adjacent the deck (side wall (12) is adjacent the deck (15)); at least one low profile load bar assembly (10) that is movably positionable (Col. 3 – lines 1-2 & 19-21) on the at least one longitudinally extending track (18); wherein the at least one low profile load bar assembly (10) includes at least one low profile sliding standoff (28) movably coupled (Col. 3 – lines 1-2 & 19-21) to the at least one longitudinally extending track (18); wherein the at least one low profile sliding standoff (28) further includes a load bar support (44) that extends therefrom adjacent the deck (15) (See Fig. 1); and a load bar track (26); wherein the load bar support (44) includes a load bar opening (See Fig. 2) sized and configured to receive the load bar track (See Fig. 2 – 26 slots into 44); and wherein the load bar track (26) is located adjacent to the deck (15) (See Fig. 1).
Re: claim 12, Stapleton et al. teaches wherein the at least one low profile sliding standoff (28) includes at least one slider (Fig. 2 – 36) engageable with the at least one longitudinally extending track (18) and attached to a connector flange (Annotated Fig. 1 – flange portion).
Re: claim 13, Stapleton et al. teaches wherein the load bar support (44) extends from a connector flange (Annotated Fig. 1 – flange portion) that is part of the at least one low profile sliding standoff (44).
Re: claim 14, Stapleton et al. teaches wherein the load bar support (44) is located adjacent (See Fig. 2) to the at least one longitudinally extending track (18).
Re: claim 15, Stapleton et al. teaches wherein an end of the load bar track (26 – within 44) is located adjacent (See Fig. 2) the to the at least one longitudinally extending track (18).
Re: claim 16, Stapleton et al. teaches further comprising a second longitudinally extending track (16) extending about parallel with the at least one longitudinally extending track (18) (See Fig. 1 & 2), wherein the at least one low profile load bar assembly (10) includes a second low profile sliding standoff (30), wherein the [a second] load bar support (46) extends from the second low profile sliding standoff (30) and supports the load bar track (26) distal from the at least one low profile sliding standoff (28) (See Fig. 1 & 2).
Re: claim 17, Stapleton et al. teaches a bedslide for use in a pickup truck cargo box (Fig. 1), the bedslide comprising: a deck (15); at least one longitudinally extending track (18) located adjacent the deck (side wall (12) is adjacent the deck (15)); at least one low profile load bar assembly (10) that is movably positionable (Col. 3 – lines 1-2 & 19-21) on the at least one longitudinally extending track (18); wherein the at least one low profile load bar assembly (10) includes at least one low profile sliding standoff (28) movably coupled (Col. 3 – lines 1-2 & 19-21) to the at least one longitudinally extending track (18); wherein the at least one low profile sliding standoff (28) includes at least one slider (Fig. 2 – 36) engageable with the at least one longitudinally extending track (18) and attached to a connector flange (Annotated Fig. 1 – flange portion); wherein the at least one low profile sliding standoff (28) further includes a load bar support (44) that extends from the connector flange (Annotated Fig. 1 – flange portion) adjacent the deck (15); wherein the load bar support (44) is located adjacent (See Fig. 2) to the at least one longitudinally extending track (18); and a load bar track (26); wherein the load bar support (44) includes a load bar opening (See Fig. 2) sized and configured to receive the load bar track (See Fig. 2 – 26 slots into 44); and wherein the load bar track (26) is located adjacent to the deck (15) (See Fig. 1).
Re: claim 18, Stapleton et al. teaches further comprising a second longitudinally extending track (16) extending about parallel with the at least one longitudinally extending track (18) (See Fig. 1 & 2), wherein the at least one low profile load bar assembly (10) includes a second low profile sliding standoff (30), wherein the [a second] load bar support (46) extends from the second low profile sliding standoff (30) and supports the load bar track (26) distal from the at least one low profile sliding standoff (28) (See Fig. 1 & 2).
Re: claim 19, Stapleton et al. teaches wherein the at least one low profile sliding standoff (28) includes a plate (Annotated Fig. 1 – plate) that sits on top of the at least one longitudinally extending track (18) (See Annotated Fig. 1).
Re: claim 20, Stapleton et al. teaches wherein the plate (Annotated Fig. 1 – plate) extends from a top surface (Annotated Fig. 1 – top of load bar support) of the load bar support (44) (See Annotated Fig. 1).
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.
Claim(s) 7 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stapleton et al. (Patent No. 5,688,087).
Re: claim 7, Stapleton et al. teaches wherein the at least one low profile sliding standoff (28) includes a slider (Fig. 2 – 36) extending from an underside of the at least one low profile sliding standoff (28). Stapleton et al. fails to teach the at least one low profile sliding standoff includes a plurality of sliders.
The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Re: claim 9, Stapleton et al. teaches wherein a low profile load bar assembly (10) is engageable with the at least one longitudinally extending track (18) (See Fig. 1). Stapleton et al. is silent on wherein a plurality of low profile load bar assemblies are engageable with the at least one longitudinally extending track.
The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Re: claim 10, Stapleton teaches wherein the low profile load bar assembly (10) is movable to a plurality of locations (Col. 3 – lines 1-2) on the at least one longitudinally extending track (18). Stapleton is silent on wherein each of the plurality of low profile load bar assemblies are movable to a plurality of locations on the at least one longitudinally extending track.
The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cloer et al. (Patent No. 7,134,154) discloses a cross-rail support system for a bed frame.
Schuling (Patent No. 10,800,465) discloses an adaptable truck bed storage system.
Huisman (Patent No. 11,052,828) discloses a cargo rack for trucks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP C ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-3421. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30 - 4:00 CT.
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 R Weisberg can be reached at 5712705500. 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.
/PHILIP CHARLES ADAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612