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 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a first side edge” is recited in lines 8 and 14; it appears that the limitation should be “the first side edge” to account for antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 7/15/2026. These drawings are not acceptable.
New drawings contain new matter not included in the original disclosure. Fig. 26A includes portion of the vehicle body comprising roof, side panel, window, and more. Fig. 26B includes two rear panels of new geometry and arrangement previously not disclosed. Fig. 26C includes new geometry for the rails with circular holes and unlabeled parts previously not disclosed. Fig. 27A includes portion of the vehicle body interior/exterior previously not disclosed. Fig. 27B includes rails of new geometry; specification described a rail 3410 but did not disclose the details as presented in the new figure. Fig. 28A includes vehicle body panel parts (surrounding boards 4032 and 4012) previously not disclosed and new arrangement of an unlabeled board structure (shown next to 4012) relative to the vehicle body panel. Fig. 28B-28C include rails and feet of new geometries. Fig. 28C also includes base or bottom boards previously not disclosed. Fig. 28D includes new opening geometries. Fig. 29A-29B include new rail/foot geometries and new arrangement pattern for the boards.
The amendment filed 7/15/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: New drawings of figures 26A-29B in pages 13-23 of the Drawings filed 7/15/2026.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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 8 and 29 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the connecting tab being configured to be received in the connecting slot". It is unclear how can the connecting slot and the connecting tab receive each other when they are on the same board. In fact, paragraph 131 of Applicant’s Specification teaches slots receive the tabs formed on another support board.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the lateral clip" in the last line. It is unclear which lateral clip this is referring as the claim recites plural lateral clips.
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.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Elsner et al. (US 20230271544 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Elsner discloses an adjustable modular (paragraph 6) support assembly (Fig. 11-12) for a vehicle (Fig. 1, trailer vehicle), the support assembly comprising: a first support board (208 in Fig. 11), the first support board having a first substantially planar body (Fig. 11) including a first support face and a second support face (Fig. 11, upper surface and lower surface), first and second opposed side edges (see annotated Fig. 11), first and second opposed end edges (see annotated Fig. 11), and four corners (see annotated Fig. 11, corners between the edges), each of the four corners being disposed between one side edge and one end edge (see annotated Fig. 11), the first substantially planar body defining a lateral axis and a longitudinal axis (see annotated Fig. 11), the first support board comprises a first opening (224 in Fig. 11) proximate a first side edge; a second support board (210 in Fig. 11), the second support board having a second substantially planar body including a first support face and a second support face, first and second opposed side edges, first and second opposed end edges, and four corners, each of the four corners being disposed between one side edge and one end edge, the second substantially planar body defining a lateral axis and a longitudinal axis (Fig. 11, similar to the first support board), the second support board comprises a first opening (226 in Fig. 11) proximate a first side edge; and a first support rail (136 in Fig. 11), the first support rail comprising: a substantially planar first rail body (Fig. 11) including a first edge (230 in Fig. 11, upper edge) that is adapted to at least partially support the first support board and the second support board (Fig. 12), a plurality of pegs (216 and 218 in Fig. 11) extending from the first edge, the pegs configured to be received by the first opening of the first support board and the first opening of the second support board (paragraph 23), a first foot (see annotated Fig. 11, alternatively the first foot can be 152) proximate a first end of the substantially planar first rail body, and a second foot (see annotated Fig. 11, alternatively the second foot can be 156) proximate a second end of the substantially planar first rail body.
PNG
media_image1.png
535
781
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 Annotated Fig. 11 from Elsner
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.
Claim(s) 15-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elsner et al. (US 20230271544 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Elsner discloses the adjustable modular support assembly of claim 14, but fails to disclose the first support board comprises a second opening proximate a first end edge.
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 first opening such that there is a second opening, 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 provides additional mating feature to further secured the boards.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the second opening to be proximate a first end edge, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), see MPEP 2144.04 VI. Doing so provides additional securing effect at the location.
Regarding claim 16, Elsner teaches the adjustable modular support assembly of claim 15, but fails to teach at least two openings proximate the first side edge of the first support board.
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 two more openings, 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 provides additional mating feature to further secured the boards.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the two openings to be proximate a first side edge, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), see MPEP 2144.04 VI. Doing so provides additional securing effect at the location.
Regarding claim 17, Elsner teaches the adjustable modular support assembly of claim 16, but fails to teach the two openings are spaced by approximately one half the length of the first side edge of the first support board.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the two openings to be spaced by the claimed distance, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), see MPEP 2144.04 VI. Doing so ensures the openings are relatively evenly distributed to create the optimal mating effect across the boards.
Regarding claim 20, Elsner discloses the adjustable modular support assembly of claim 14, but fails to disclose at least two pegs in the plurality of pegs are spaced from one another by approximately half of a side edge length of the first support board.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the two pegs to be spaced by the claimed distance, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), see MPEP 2144.04 VI. Doing so ensures the mating features are relatively evenly distributed to create the optimal mating effect across the boards.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elsner as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Barnhart (US 20220281373 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Elsner discloses the adjustable modular support assembly of claim 17, but fails to disclose a first opening is centered approximately 1/4 the total length of the first side edge of the first support board between the first end edge of the first support board and a second end edge of the first support board, and a second opening is centered approximately 3/4 of the total length of the first side edge of the first support board between the first end edge and the second end edge of the first support board.
Barnhart teaches a first opening and a second opening (Elsner in paragraph 23 described 262 is mechanically fastened to the support boards below, Barnhart teaches in paragraph 45 that mechanical fasteners can be screws which would have openings).
Barnhart is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle storage panels that are mechanically fastened as Elsner.
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 assembly as taught by Elsner to incorporate the teachings of Barnhart with a reasonable expectation of success and use screws such that there are two openings. Doing so ensures the proper fastening between the support board and the panels above.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the two openings to be centered at the claimed location, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), see MPEP 2144.04 VI. Doing so ensures the fastening features are relatively evenly distributed to create the optimal securement across the boards and the panels.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elsner as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Moore et al. (US 10328860 B2).
Regarding claim 24, Elsner discloses the adjustable modular support assembly of claim 14, but fails to disclose a tailgate extension board, the tailgate extension board comprising a substantially planar body, a first end edge and a second end edge, and a plurality of slots proximate the first end edge.
Moore teaches a tailgate extension board (Moore, 104 in Fig. 1, extends from tailgate 10; Elsner already discloses a tailgate 546 in Fig. 5), the tailgate extension board comprising a substantially planar body (Fig. 1), a first end edge and a second end edge (Moore, Fig. 1, two edges adjacent and perpendicular to the tailgate), and a plurality of slots proximate the first end edge (Moore, 115 in Fig. 1, multiple around the peripheral edges of the extension board).
Moore is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle pivotable tailgate or door as Elsner.
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 assembly as taught by Elsner to incorporate the teachings of Moore with a reasonable expectation of success and have an extension board. Doing so provides additional functionality to the tailgate.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elsner as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Lewis et al. (US 20160258462 A1).
Regarding claim 29, Elsner discloses the adjustable modular support assembly of claim 14, but fails to disclose lateral clips configured to extend through the first opening of the first support board and the first opening of the second support board, the lateral clips receiving the first edge of the first rail body in a slot formed in the lateral clip.
Lewis teaches lateral clips (Lewis, 106 in Fig. 4 and paragraph 25) configured to extend through the first opening of the first support board and the first opening of the second support board (Lewis, Fig. 4; after combination the clips can be used with the openings of Elsner), the lateral clips receiving the first edge of the first rail body in a slot formed in the lateral clip (Lewis, Fig. 4, edge of panel 124 received in slot 164; after combination, first edge of the rail body can be received similar to how edge of 124 is received).
Lewis is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle storage board joints as Elsner.
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 assembly as taught by Elsner to incorporate the teachings of Lewis with a reasonable expectation of success and use a clip to join the rail and the board. Doing so illuminates the need for glues and therefore if parts are broken, one does not need to replace the entire assembly. Also allows the assembly to separate and stored in a smaller form factor or shipped in a smaller container to save cost.
Claims 1, 5-6, 11, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 20210146844 A1) in view of Barnhart (US 20220281373 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Smith discloses an adjustable modular support assembly (Smith, Fig. 1 and paragraph 23-24, modular and adjustable by telescoping) for a vehicle (Smith, 50 in Fig. 1), the support assembly comprising: a first support board (Smith, 100c in Fig. 1), the first support board having a first substantially planar body (Smith, Fig. 1, 100c has a planar body) including a first support face (Smith, 120 in Fig. 1, upper face) and a second support face (Smith, Fig. 1 and 6, bottom surface), first and second opposed side edges (Smith, see annotated Fig. 1), first and second opposed end edges (Smith, see annotated Fig. 1), and four corners (Smith, see annotated Fig. 1), each of the four corners being disposed between one side edge and one end edge (Smith, see annotated Fig. 1), the first substantially planar body defining a lateral axis and a longitudinal axis (Smith, see annotated Fig. 1, respectively in lateral and longitudinal directions of the vehicle); and a second support board (Smith, 100b in Fig. 1), the second support board having a second substantially planar body including a first support face and a second support face, first and second opposed side edges, first and second opposed end edges, and four corners, each of the four corners being disposed between one side edge and one end edge, the second substantially planar body defining a lateral axis and a longitudinal axis (Smith, Fig. 1, similar to the first support board 100c, second support board also has an upper surface, a bottom surface, four edges and four corners between the edges, and axes through the panel that are in the lateral and longitudinal directions), wherein each corner of the first support board and the second support board are adapted to receive a vehicle tailgate bulkhead (Smith, see annotated Fig. 1, the corner forms cutout contour; Fig. 1 and 3-4 show both boards’ corners are telescopic, making them capable of adapting to fit next to a vehicle tailgate bulkhead, thereby receive it; paragraph 0088 of Applicant’s Specification described receive the bulkhead 14 by going partially around the bulkhead) and configured to be removably disposed (Smith, Fig. 13-15, panels can be removed from the side rails as they are but permanently fixed; Fig. 17 and paragraph 28 also described the board can be removed from the support rail of Fig. 1).
Smith fails to disclose a truck bed.
PNG
media_image2.png
537
773
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 Annotated Fig. 1 from Smith
Barnhart teaches a truck bed (Barnhart, Fig. 3).
Barnhart is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle rear storage means as Smith.
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 assembly as taught by Smith to incorporate the teachings of Barnhart with a reasonable expectation of success and install the adjustable support assembly in the truck bed. Doing so provides additional modular storage options for a truck when desired.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Smith in view of Barnhart teaches the adjustable modular support assembly of claim 1, further comprising an opening (Smith, see annotated Fig. 1) proximate one of a side edge and an end edge (Smith, see annotated Fig. 1, proximate to first end edge and second side edge) of the first substantially planar body.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Smith in view of Barnhart teaches the adjustable modular support assembly of any claim 1, further comprising a third support board (Smith, 100a in Fig. 1), the third support board having a third substantially planar body including a first support face and a second support face, first and second opposed side edges, first and second opposed end edges, and four corners, each of the four corners being disposed between one side edge and one end edge, the third substantially planar body defining a lateral axis and a longitudinal axis (Smith, Fig. 1, similar to the first support board 100c, third support board also has an upper surface, a bottom surface, four edges and four corners between the edges, and axes through the panel that are in the lateral and longitudinal directions), wherein a length of a first side edge of the third support board (Smith, Fig. 3 and paragraph 32, third board 100a has a length in the vehicle longitudinal direction shorter than the length of first board 100c).
The combination of Smith in view of Barnhart teaches the claimed invention except for the length is approximately half the length of a first side edge of the first support board. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the size of the third support board such that its length is approximately half the length of a first side edge of the first support board (Smith already teaches the third support board 100a is narrower in paragraph 0032), since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), and In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), see MPEP 2144.04 IV. Doing so gives more space for seating or for storage, and allows fitting in different vehicles of smaller dimension.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Smith in view of Barnhart teaches the adjustable modular support assembly of claim 1, wherein one of the first and second opposed side edges of the first support board includes a notch having two steps (Smith, see annotated Fig. 12, notch 1210 has two steps; paragraph 32 described the panels can have similar structures and panel 100a corresponds to 100b).
PNG
media_image3.png
325
676
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3 Annotated Fig. 12 from Smith
Regarding claim 41, Smith discloses a modular support assembly kit (Smith, Fig. 1 and paragraph 23-24, modular and adjustable by telescoping) for a vehicle (Smith, 50 in Fig. 1), the kit comprising: a first support board (Smith, 100c in Fig. 1), the first support board having a first substantially planar body (Smith, Fig. 1, 100c has a planar body) including a first support face (Smith, 120 in Fig. 1, upper face) and a second support face (Smith, Fig. 1 and 6, bottom surface), first and second opposed side edges (Smith, see annotated Fig. 1), first and second opposed end edges (Smith, see annotated Fig. 1), and four corners (Smith, see annotated Fig. 1), each of the four corners being disposed between one side edge and one end edge (Smith, see annotated Fig. 1), the first substantially planar body defining a lateral axis and a longitudinal axis (Smith, see annotated Fig. 1, respectively in lateral and longitudinal directions of the vehicle); and a second support board (Smith, 100b in Fig. 1), the second support board having a second substantially planar body including a first support face and a second support face, first and second opposed side edges, first and second opposed end edges, and four corners, each of the four corners being disposed between one side edge and one end edge, the second substantially planar body defining a lateral axis and a longitudinal axis (Smith, Fig. 1, similar to the first support board 100c, second support board also has an upper surface, a bottom surface, four edges and four corners between the edges, and axes through the panel that are in the lateral and longitudinal directions), and a third support board (Smith, 100a in Fig. 1), the third support board having a third substantially planar body including a first support face and a second support face, first and second opposed side edges, first and second opposed end edges, and four corners, each of the four corners being disposed between one side edge and one end edge, the third substantially planar body defining a lateral axis and a longitudinal axis (Smith, Fig. 1, similar to the first support board 100c, third support board also has an upper surface, a bottom surface, four edges and four corners between the edges, and axes through the panel that are in the lateral and longitudinal directions), wherein each corner of the first support board and the second support board are adapted to receive a vehicle tailgate bulkhead (Smith, see annotated Fig. 1, the corner forms cutout contour; Fig. 1 and 3-4 show both boards’ corners are telescopic, making them capable of adapting to fit next to a vehicle tailgate bulkhead, thereby receive it; paragraph 0088 of Applicant’s Specification described receive the bulkhead 14 by going partially around the bulkhead) and configured to be removably disposed (Smith, Fig. 13-15, panels can be removed from the side rails as they are but permanently fixed; Fig. 17 and paragraph 28 also described the board can be removed from the support rail of Fig. 1), wherein a length of a first side edge of the third support board (Smith, Fig. 3 and paragraph 32, third board 100a has a length in the vehicle longitudinal direction shorter than the length of first board 100c).
Smith fails to disclose a truck bed.
Barnhart teaches a truck bed (Barnhart, Fig. 3).
Barnhart is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle rear storage means as Smith.
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 assembly as taught by Smith to incorporate the teachings of Barnhart with a reasonable expectation of success and install the adjustable support assembly in the truck bed. Doing so provides additional modular storage options for a truck when desired.
Smith discloses the claimed invention except for the length is approximately half the length of a first side edge of the first support board. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the size of the third support board such that its length is approximately half the length of a first side edge of the first support board (Smith already teaches the third support board 100a is narrower in paragraph 0032), since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), and In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), see MPEP 2144.04 IV. Doing so gives more space for seating or for storage, and allows fitting in different vehicles of smaller dimension.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Smith in view of Barnhart as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Briggs et al. (US 20190106063 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Smith in view of Barnhart teaches the adjustable modular support assembly of claim 1, wherein at least one corner of the first substantially planar body comprises a first angled edge (Smith, see annotated Fig. 1) that connects to the end edge and a second angled edge (Smith, see annotated Fig. 1) that connects to the side edge.
The combination of Smith in view of Barnhart fails to teach a radiused edge.
Briggs teaches a radiused edge (Briggs, see annotated Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image4.png
267
609
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 Annotated Fig. 2 from Briggs
Briggs is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle rear storage means with corner adapted to receive a tailgate bulkhead as Smith in view of Barnhart.
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 assembly as taught by Smith in view of Barnhart to incorporate the teachings of Briggs with a reasonable expectation of success and have a radiused edge such that the first angled edge and the second angled surface both connects the radiused to a side/end edge. Doing so allows better accommodation with the bulkhead when the bulkhead has a curved contour, and/or reduces stress concentration points to strengthen the structural integrity of the support boards.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Smith in view of Barnhart and Briggs teaches the adjustable modular support assembly of claim 3, wherein the at least one corner further comprises a third angled edge that connects the radiused edge to the second angled edge, the third angled edge and the first angled edge being substantially perpendicular to one another (Briggs, see annotated Fig. 2).
Briggs is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle rear storage means with corner adapted to receive a tailgate bulkhead as Smith in view of Barnhart.
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 assembly as taught by Smith in view of Barnhart to incorporate the teachings of Briggs with a reasonable expectation of success and have three angled edges. Doing so provides clearance when required by the vehicle geometry, and/or provides an exposed location such that a user can lift or adjust the board as desired.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Smith in view of Barnhart as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Golden (US 20100308617 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Smith in view of Barnhart teaches the adjustable modular support assembly of claim 1, but fails to teach one of a connecting slot or a connecting tab.
Golden teaches the first end edge includes one of a connecting slot or a connecting tab (Golden, Fig. 13 and paragraph 49, tongue and groove 504, where tongue is connecting tab and groove is connecting slot).
Golden is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle rear storage means as Smith in view of Barnhart.
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 assembly as taught by Smith in view of Barnhart to incorporate the teachings of Golden with a reasonable expectation of success and have tabs and slots on the end edges. Doing so provides a locking effect between boards such that they do not move unintentionally during use.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Smith in view of Barnhart and Golden teaches the adjustable modular support assembly of claim 7, wherein the second end edge of the first support board includes the other of the connecting slot or the connecting tab, the connecting tab being configured to be received in the connecting slot (Golden, Fig. 13, first end edge of one board can have the connecting slot, second end edge of another board can have the connecting tab/tongue; each board also has both tab and slot).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see sixth paragraph on page 10 of Applicant’s Reply, filed 7/15/2026, with respect to the drawing objections of claims 7-8, 11, and 29 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of 3/19/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the last paragraphs on pages 13 and 14 of Applicant’s Reply, Applicant argues that Smith fails to disclose the amended limitation in claims 1 and 41. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Smith discloses each corner of the first support board and the second support board are adapted to receive a vehicle tailgate bulkhead (Smith, see annotated Fig. 1, the corner forms cutout contour; Fig. 1 and 3-4 show both boards’ corners are telescopic, making them capable of adapting to fit next to a vehicle tailgate bulkhead, thereby receive it; paragraph 0088 of Applicant’s Specification described receive the bulkhead 14 by going partially around the bulkhead). Adapted to receive does not require the corners to have matching contours with the bulkhead and to fully encompass the bulkhead.
Applicant’s arguments, see the second paragraph on page 14 of Applicant’s Reply, filed 7/15/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Elsner et al. (US 20230271544 A1). See rejection above for details.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 26 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 the allowance of the claims is the inclusion in the claims of the limitations directed to a first slider board, the first slider board including a substantially planar bottom having a first end edge and a second end edge, a first side edge and a second side edge, and an opening proximate the first end edge, the opening being adapted for grasping by a user and the first slider board being configured to fit beneath at least one of the first support board and the second support board when the first support board and the second support board are arranged in a vehicle. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claims, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. The closest prior art is Elsner, but Elsner fails to disclose a slider board configured to fit beneath one of the support boards. Elsner discloses spaces 278/280 in Fig. 14 underneath the support boards where additional parts can fit. However, Elsner also discloses a wall 274 in Fig. 15 that would prevent any slider boards from functioning properly if a teaching reference is applied to teach the slider board limitation. Elsner further discloses accessing the storage space underneath the support board from above through parts 266/264. In conclusion, it is not obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have slider boards in the assembly of Elsner absent impermissible hindsight reasoning.
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 vehicle adjustable modular support assemblies.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at (571) 272-5109. 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
Prosecution Insights