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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 4 of Applicant’s drawings are confusing because it is not clear what the reference numerals 26a and 26b are indicating as the telescoping extension sleeves. In Fig. 4, 26a appears to be pointing to an outer non-moving sleeve while 26b appears to be pointing to an inner moving member that slides out of the outer non-moving sleeve.
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:
On page 4, lines 8-9, Applicant discloses, “The telescoping extension sleeves 26a, 26b contain and each telescoping side panel 32a, 32b respectively.” This language contains grammatical errors rendering the disclosure unclear.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 3, line 2, “the phrase, “according to claim 1” is duplicated. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-5 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.
In claim 1, line 3, Applicant recites “said telescoping side panel extends vertically from the first side panel.” However, Figure 2 of Applicant’s drawings show the telescoping side panel extending horizontally from the first side panel. Line 5 of claim 1 has a similar problem. For purposes of applying prior art these two instances of the term “vertically” will be interpreted as
--horizontally.--
Applicant’s disclosure indicates that the “telescoping extension sleeve for each telescoping side panel” is associated with reference numbers 26a and 26b. However, in view of the above objections to the drawings and the specification, it is not clear what structure Applicant intends to be “a telescoping extension sleeve for each telescoping side panel” as recited in claim 5. For purposes of expediting examination, the terminology in the claims will be interpreted as follows:
“A first side panel” is interpreted as non-moving fixed sleeve 26a and moving telescopic panel 32a together. Likewise, “a second side panel” will be interpreted as non-moving fixed sleeve 26b and moving telescopic panel 32b together.
“A telescoping side panel” is interpreted as moving panel 32a,32b.
“A telescoping extension sleeve” is interpreted as non-moving fixed sleeve 26a,26b
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 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weaver (US 11,059,423).
With respect to claim 1, Weaver discloses an extendable truck bed comprising:
a. a first side panel 30L,56L, wherein the first side panel includes a telescoping side panel 56L, wherein said telescoping side panel extends vertically from the first side panel 30L (as shown in Fig. 4 of Weaver);
b. a second side panel 30R,56R, wherein the second side panel includes a telescoping side panel 56R, wherein said telescoping side panel extends vertically from the second side panel 30R (as shown in Fig. 4 of Weaver);
c. a truck bed 22, wherein the truck bed includes a telescoping extension 58, where said telescoping extension works in conjunction with the telescoping side panels 56L,56R (as shown in Fig. 4 of Weaver);
d. a tail gate 24; and
e. an underside support frame 50R,50L,48R,48L, supporting an underside of the truck bed 22 (as shown in Figs. 4-5 of Weaver).
With respect to claim 3, Weaver discloses that the underside support frame 50R,50L,48R,48L includes a first side support 50L and a second side support 50R (as shown in Fig. 4 of Weaver).
With respect to claim 4, Weaver discloses that the first side support 50L and the second side support 50R, each include a telescoping extension 48L,48R, respectively, wherein each said telescoping extension adjoin to the underside of the truck bed 22 (as shown in Fig. 4 of Weaver).
With respect to claim 5, Weaver discloses a telescoping extension sleeve 30L,30R for each telescoping side panel.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weaver (US 11,059,423), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Adams et al. (US 5,816,637).
With respect to claim 2, Weaver discloses the claimed extendable truck bed except for the gate supports. However, Adams et al. teach a similar extendable truck bed including telescoping left and right side panels 26,28, a tail gate 30, and gate supports 68,68, where the gate supports support the tailgate 30 in a lowered position (as shown in Fig. 1 of Adams et al.).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Adams et al. with the extendable truck bed disclosed by Weaver for the advantage of reliably securing the tail gate in an open horizontal position (Adams et al., col. 6, lines 7-12)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Burg and Fox are cited to show other examples of an extendable truck bed including an underside support frame supporting an underside of the truck bed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J COLILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-2157. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 4:00.
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.
/Daniel J Colilla/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612