Accessory Mounting System

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 . Response to Amendment The Amendment filed 5/12/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-18 remain pending in the application. Claims 12 and 14-18 have been rejected as follows. Claim 13 is objected to. Claims 1-11 are allowed. 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. Claims 12 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wood et al (US Patent No. 5,360,250). Regarding claim 12, Wood et al discloses an accessory mounting system to support an accessory (i.e. camper top, column 7, lines 8-14) on a truck bed sidewall (14, 15, Fig. 1), the accessory mounting system comprising at least one support block (46, Fig. 2 or 72/66, Fig. 3-5) configured to be positioned within a pocket (45, Fig. 2-3) in a sidewall cap (34, Fig. 2; 55, Fig. 3) of the truck bed sidewall (14, Fig. 2-3) and extend from a top surface of the truck bed sidewall (20, Fig. 2-3) located under the sidewall cap (34, Fig. 2; 55, Fig. 3); and wherein the at least one support block (46, Fig. 2 or 72/66, Fig. 3-5) includes a top surface (see annotated Figures 1-2 below) configured to support the accessory (column 6, lines 46-50; column 7, lines 8-12) and a bottom surface (see annotated Figures 1-2 below) configured to be supported by the truck bed sidewall (20, 14, Fig. 2-3). Figure 1: PNG media_image1.png 590 551 media_image1.png Greyscale Figure 2: PNG media_image2.png 539 614 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 14, Wood et al further discloses wherein a bore (70, Fig. 4-5) is disposed through the at least one support block (72/66, Fig. 5). See annotated Figure 2 above. Regarding claim 15, Wood et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 14 above, and further discloses wherein the bore (70, Fig. 4-5) is configured to receive the fastener (74, Fig. 3-4; column 7, lines 66 to column 8, line 5) to secure the at least one support block (72/66, Fig. 3-4) to the truck bed sidewall (14, 20, Fig. 3). See annotated Figure 2 above. Regarding claim 16, Wood et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 15 above, and further discloses wherein the fastener is a bolt (toggle bolt 74, Fig. 3-4; column 7, lines 42-45). Regarding claim 17, Wood et al further discloses wherein the at least one support block (72/66, Fig. 3) includes a plurality of support blocks (at each stake pocket 50, Fig. 3-4; column 3, lines 61-64 & column 7, lines 6-15, lines 49-59), wherein each of the plurality of support blocks is configured to be positioned in one pocket. Regarding claim 18, Wood et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 17 above, and further discloses wherein the each of the plurality of support blocks (72/66, Fig. 3) includes a top surface configured to support the accessory and a bottom surface configured to be supported by the truck bed sidewall (14, 20, Fig. 3). See annotated Figure 2 above. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-11 are allowed. Claim 13 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter in claims 1 and 13 is the inclusion of the limitations “the top surface of the at least one support block is configured to extend above a top surface of the sidewall cap to create a gap between the accessory and the top surface of the sidewall cap so the accessory is configured to be supported by the at least one support block and not the sidewall cap”. The closest prior art of Wood et al discloses a support block (46, Fig. 2 or 72/66, Fig. 3-5); however, it does not extend above a top surface of the sidewall cap (34, Fig. 2 or 55, Fig. 3-4) to create a gap between the accessory and the top surface of the sidewall cap. Applicant’s raised gap created by the support block extending above a top surface of the sidewall cap assists in keeping excess weight off the sidewall cap. A downward force applied by a truck bed cap, or other accessory structure, is distributed through the support block via its bottom surface, and ultimately the cargo box sidewall which the support block sits on to thereby keep excess weight off of the (usually plastic) sidewall cap. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. Claims 2-11 contain allowable subject matter by virtue of dependency from claim 1. Response to Arguments On page 2 of Applicant’s response, applicant argues that Wood et al (US 5,360,250) is directed to a truck bed liner with rail protection in contrast to the pending claims which are directed to an accessory mounting system. With respect to these arguments, the top of the rail protector 34 functions as “a sidewall cap” in that it shields and protects the bed rail from scratches and dents from accessory mounting of cargo or a camper top and thus is interpreted also as an “accessory mounting system”. Member 46 or 66/72 functions as a load bearing foam (see abstract; column 3, lines 50-64; column 6, lines 26-50) thus interpreted as a support block dissipating loading forces applied to the rail from the cargo or camper top accessory. On page 3 of Applicant’s response, applicant argues that the present application describes a discrete support block 26 that is fitted into pocket 18 of sidewall cap 12 and extends downward through that pocket until bottom surface 33 is supported by top surface 6 of cargo box sidewall 2, while block cap 32 at the top of the same block is configured to support the accessory; and Wood et al does not disclose that structure. With respect to these arguments, that the reference fails to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a discrete support block that is fitted into a pocket of sidewall cap and extends downward through that pocket until a bottom surface is supported by a top surface of the cargo box sidewall, while a block cap at the top of the same block is configured to support the accessory.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant’s “pocket” in independent claim 12 does not require the support block to extend through the pocket. This distinguishing feature is set forth in the limitations of claim 13. The claimed “pocket in a sidewall cap” is interpreted as disclosed by Wood et al in that the sidewall cap (34, 55) surrounds the support block (46 embodiment Fig. 2, 66+72 embodiment Fig. 3) in a pocket (recess 45). Further, the dictionary definition of “pocket” includes “isolated area, space surrounded by something different”, thus the limitation of a pocket in the claims is interpreted as 45 in Figure 2-3, disclosed as a recess in column 6, lines 7-13, with a description including “Recess 45 is a volume of space created between rail protector 34 and top rail 20”. On pages 3-4 of Applicant’s response, applicant argues that the claimed pocket is a feature of the sidewall cap itself and that Wood et al has a different arrangement than that claimed. With respect to these arguments, applicant does not define the pocket in the claims with any further structure (i.e. “as an opening in the top of the sidewall cap where the support block is fitted into the pocket of the sidewall cap and extends downward through that pocket” or “the top surface of the at least one support block configured to extend above a top surface of the sidewall cap”). Therefore, the claimed “pocket in a sidewall cap” is interpreted as disclosed by Wood et al in that the sidewall cap (34, 55) surrounds the support block (46 embodiment Fig. 2, 66+72 embodiment Fig. 3) in a pocket (recess 45). Further, the dictionary definition of “pocket” includes “isolated area, space surrounded by something different”, thus the limitation of a pocket in the claims is interpreted as 45 in Figure 2-3, disclosed as a recess in column 6, lines 7-13, with a description including “Recess 45 is a volume of space created between rail protector 34 and top rail 20”. On page 4 of Applicant’s response, applicant argues that the present application discloses a discrete mounting block having a top surface for supporting an accessory mounted on the truck bed sidewall that is not shown in Wood et al. The drawings in Wood et al, which are part of the reference’s disclosure, can be relied upon to show that the support block (46 embodiment Fig. 2, 66+72 embodiment Fig. 3) has both a top surface configured to support the accessory (cargo or camper top attached to sidewall cap at 41) and a bottom surface configured to be supported by the truck bed sidewall (20) as annotated in the above Figures 2-3 of Wood et al (see annotated Figure 1 & 2 above). On page 5 of Applicant’s response, applicant argues that the annotated figures obscure the fact that the rejection shifts among multiple structures and embodiments to approximate the claim language. With respect to these arguments, the annotated figures highlight the breadth of applicant’s claims and the various ways that the claim language may be interpreted. The annotated figures are intended to provide clarity regarding how the claimed limitations are read on the disclosed embodiments of Wood et al. Anticipation is based on what is actually claimed and how the reference meets the claimed limitations, where the disclosure of the reference includes the drawings and what must necessarily and inevitably be present (i.e. a support block has top and bottom surfaces) as well as what constitutes a reasonable interpretation within the confines of the disclosure. As such, Wood et al is interpreted as disclosing a liner reinforcement and accessory mounting support block system with a support block positioned within a pocket (recess 45) in a sidewall cap as demonstrated in annotated Figure 1 & 2 above. On page 6 of Applicant’s response, applicant argues that Wood et al does not disclose "a bore…disposed through the at least one support block" of claim 12. With respect to these arguments, annotated Figure 2 above demonstrates how Wood et al is interpreted as disclosing a bore (hole 70, Fig. 4-5; column 7, lines 42-45) disposed through the at least one support block (72+67, Fig. 5). On page 6 of Applicant’s response, applicant argues that Wood et al does not disclose "a fastener, wherein the bore is configured to receive the fastener to secure the at least one support block to the truck bed sidewall," as claimed. With respect to these arguments, annotated Figure 2 above demonstrates how Wood et al is interpreted as disclosing a fastener (74, Fig. 3-4), wherein the bore (70, Fig. 4-5) is configured to receive the fastener (74, Fig. 3-4; disclosed as toggle bolt in column 7, lines 66 to column 8, line 12) to secure the at least one support block (72/66, Fig. 3-4) to the truck bed sidewall (14, 20, Fig. 3). On page 7 of Applicant’s response, applicant argues that Wood et al does not disclose that "the fastener is a bolt". With respect to these arguments, annotated Figure 2 above demonstrates how Wood et al is interpreted as disclosing that the fastener is a bolt (toggle bolt 74, Fig. 3-4; column 7, lines 42-45). Additionally, the limitations of claims 17 and 18 are described in the rejection above. Applicant’s arguments, with regard to claims 14-18, that the structure of Wood et al does not disclose an accessory mounting system, a support block positioned within a pocket in a sidewall cap and extending from the top surface of the truck bed sidewall beneath the sidewall cap are not persuasive as outlined above. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. 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 Denise L Esquivel whose telephone number is (703)756-5825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Thursday 7:30 am-5:00 pm, alternate Fridays 7:30 am-4:00 pm. 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. /D.L.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3612 /AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612