Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/397,515

MODULAR TRUCK BED CAP

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Dec 27, 2023
Examiner
AKAKPO, DANY E
Art Unit
3672
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
87%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 87% — above average
87%
Career Allow Rate
457 granted / 523 resolved
+35.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+13.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
40 currently pending
Career history
563
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.0%
-38.0% vs TC avg
§103
42.1%
+2.1% vs TC avg
§102
28.2%
-11.8% vs TC avg
§112
23.4%
-16.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 523 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claims 1-2, 7-8, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Devine (US 7988218B1). Regarding claims 1 and 18, Devine discloses a modular truck cap for removable installation on a bed of a truck, comprising: a front section (24) removably mountable to extend upwards from a front rail (32) of a truck bed (fig 4);a left section (25, left, figs 4) removably mountable to extend upwards from a left side rail (31, left, figs 1-4) of the truck bed (col 5 line 59- col 6 line 17, figs 1-4); a right section (25, right, figs 1-4) removably mountable to extend upwards from a right side rail (31, right, figs 1-4) of the truck bed (col 5 line 59- col 6 line 17, figs 1-4); a rear section (151) removably mountable to extend upwards from a rear tailgate (tailgate shown in fig 15) of the truck bed (fig 15, col 9 line 50 – col 10 line 17); and one or more roof sections (33) collectively covering at least a portion of a space defined by the front section, rear section, left section and right section (figs 1-4), each of said roof sections removably mountable to two or more of said front section, left section, right section and rear section(figs 1-4, abstract). Regarding claim 2, Devine further discloses that the one or more roof sections comprise a front top section (front halft of 33) and a rear top section (rear half of 33) (figs 1-4). Regarding claim 7, Devine further discloses the sections are comprised of fiberglass (col 5 line 59 – col 6 line 17). Regarding claim 8, Devine further discloses that the sections are each formed via molding (col 6 lines 56-64). 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. Claims 3- 6, 12-14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devine (US 7988218B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Young et al. (US 20230028850). Regarding claims 3-6, Devine is silent regarding one or more latches removably attaching the front section, left section and right section to the truck bed. Young teaches one or more latches (132) removably attaching the front section, left section and right section to the truck bed ([0033], figs 3-6). (Claim 4) Young further teaches that each latch is pivotably mounted to one of said sections to move between a stowed configuration in which the latch pivots upward against the section to which it is mounted, and a deployed configuration in which the latch is pivoted downward away from the section to which it is mounted ([0033], figs 3-6). (Claim 5 )Young further teaches one or more mounting points (134) secured to the bed of the truck (figs 3-6, [0033]), wherein each of said latches is mounted to one of the sections (figs 3-6, [0033]), and each of said latches engages one or more of said mounting points to secure the section to which it is mounted to the bed of the truck (figs 3-6, [0033]). (Claim 6) Young further teaches that the mounting points comprise one or more sections of strut, L angle, I beam or U channel affixed to front, left and right sides of the bed (figs 3-6). (Claim 19) Young further teaches interlocking one or more top sections with the left section, the right section, and at least one of the front section and the rear section (figs 3-6). (Claim 20) Young further teaches securing the front section, the rear section, the left section and the right section to the truck bed using a tool-less removable fastener (figs 3-6). Before the effective filling date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Devine and Young before him or her, to modify the apparatus/method disclosed by Devine to include the latch and mounting points as taught by Young in order to secure the removable panels ([0033]). Regarding claim 12, Devine is silent regarding a replacement section that may be swapped in place of a counterpart section comprising one or more of the front section, rear section, left section, right section or roof sections; wherein structure of the replacement section differs from the counterpart section. Young teaches a replacement section that may be swapped in place of a counterpart section comprising one or more of the front section, rear section, left section, right section or roof sections; wherein structure of the replacement section differs from the counterpart section ([0037] a panel 100 having a window 118 may be swapped out for a panel 100 that does not include a window to provide enhanced privacy and security when needed.). (Claim 13) Young further teaches that the counterpart section is opaque and the replacement section comprises a window ([0037]). (Claim 14) Young further discloses that the counterpart section is a side section and the replacement section is a side section comprising a lockable door (100) enclosing one or more storage compartments (interior of 104) ([0033]-[0034]). Before the effective filling date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Devine and Young before him or her, to modify the apparatus/method disclosed by Devine to include replacement sections for increased configurability ([0002]) Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devine (US 7988218B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kramer (US 20190118628). Regarding claim 9, Devine is silent regarding the fact that the left section and the right section, when installed, each curve laterally outward from points at which said left section and right section meet the bed. Kramer teaches left and right sections (12) that each curve laterally outward from points at which said left section and right section meet the bed (figs 1-19). Before the effective filling date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Devine and Kramer before him or her, to modify the apparatus/method disclosed by Devine to include sections with curve as taught by Kramer in order to reach into the cargo space from locations alongside the cargo bed rather than having to climb into the cargo space as through the door usually provided at the rear end of a cap ([0008]) Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devine (US 7988218B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Frankham (US 20080067830) Regarding claims 10-11, Devine is silent regarding the fact that said front section adjoins with the left section, right section and at least one of the roof sections via portions of said sections mating in tongue and groove structures. Frankham teaches that said front section adjoins with the left section, right section and at least one of the roof sections via portions of said sections mating in tongue and groove structures (fig 1). (Claim 11) Frankham further teaches that one or more seals compressed within the tongue and groove structures when assembled ([0026]). Before the effective filling date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Devine and Frankham before him or her, to modify the apparatus/method disclosed by Devine to include tongue and groove structure as taught by Frankham in order to provide flush fitting joins resulting in a smooth exterior surface (0025). Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devine (US 7988218B1) and Young et al (US 20230028850) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dawson (US 20230173898). Regarding claims 15-17, the combination of Devine and Young is silent regarding the fact that the counterpart section is a roof section and the replacement section is a roof section comprising solar panels. Dawson teaches that the replacement section a roof section (102) comprising solar panels (abstract, figs 1-2) (Claim 16 ) Dawson further teaches a roof section (102) movable between a lowered configuration enclosing the truck cap (fig 1), and one or more raised configurations allowing open communication between the truck bed and areas outside the truck cap (fig 2). (Claim 17 ) Dawson further teaches a roof section (102) movable between a lowered configuration enclosing the truck cap (fig 1), and one or more raised configurations allow further discloses that the replacement section comprises configurable legs (122) which may be deployed from a bottom side of the replacement section and connected to one or more of the side sections (figs 1-2). Before the effective filling date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Devine and Young before him or her, to modify the apparatus/method disclosed by Devine to include the solar panels as taught by Dawson in order to generate electric power ([0002]) Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANY E AKAKPO whose telephone number is (469)295-9255. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm. 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, Nicole Coy can be reached on (571) 272-5405. 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. /DANY E AKAKPO/Examiner, Art Unit 3672 1/19/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 27, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601248
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DRILLING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600292
SENSOR AND INDICATOR LIGHT MOUNTING STRUCTURE, AND CARGO HANDLING VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590534
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DETERMINING PLACEMENT OF A DOWNHOLE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590526
WELLBORE DRILL DEVIATION HANDLING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590527
ROTARY STEERABLE SYSTEM ADVISOR WITH AUTONOMOUS MODE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
87%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+13.0%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 523 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month