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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: Fig. 26A-29B, along with all their reference labels recited in the specification, are not shown. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the connecting slot and connecting tab in claims 7-8, the notch having two steps in claim 11, the laterally oriented opening and the lateral clip in claim 29 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
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 4, 7-8, 11, and 16-18 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 4 recites the limitation "the second angled edge" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant may overcome this rejection by amending “a second angled surface” in claim 3 to recite “a second angled edge.”
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the first end edge.” It is unclear which first end edge this is referring to, since claim 1 recites two first end edges, one for the first support board and another for the second support board.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the second end edge.” It is unclear which second end edge this is referring to, since claim 1 recites two second end edges, one for the first support board and another for the second support board.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the first and second opposed side edges.” It is unclear if this is referring the side edges of the first support board or the side edges of the second support board, or of both support boards.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the first side edge.” It is unclear which first side edge this is referring to, since claim 14 recites two first side edges, one for the first support board and another for the second support board.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "a side edge of the substantially planar body” and “the two openings.” It is unclear which side edge this is referring to, as there are four side edges recited in claim 14. It is also unclear which two openings this is referring to, since claims 15 and 16 each recites two openings.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the first side edge.” It is unclear which first side edge this is referring to, as there are two first side edges recited in claim 14.
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 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sullivan et al. (US 11833955 B1).
Regarding claim 14, Sullivan discloses an adjustable modular support assembly (Fig. 6, adjustable as shown in Fig. 1 and 5) for a vehicle (Fig. 1), the support assembly comprising: a first support board (Fig. 6, rear board 60), the first support board having a first substantially planar body (Fig. 6) including a first support face (68 in Fig. 6) and a second support face (63 in Fig. 3), first and second opposed side edges (see annotated Fig. 6), first and second opposed end edges (see annotated Fig. 6), and four corners (Fig. 6, four corners between the edges), each of the four corners being disposed between one side edge and one end edge (see annotated Fig. 6), the first substantially planar body defining a lateral axis and a longitudinal axis (see annotated Fig. 6); a second support board (middle board 60 in Fig. 6), 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. 6, similar to the first support board, 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 first support rail (30 in Fig. 6), the first support rail comprising a substantially planar first rail body (Fig. 6, 30 has a planar body that is flat), a first foot (see annotated Fig. 2) proximate a first end of the substantially planar first rail body and a second foot (see annotated Fig. 2) proximate a second end of the substantially planar first rail body, the substantially planar first rail body including a first edge (Fig. 4 and 6, edge at the upper portion of the rail panel where the boards attach to) that is adapted to at least partially support at least one of the first support board (Fig. 6) and the second support board.
PNG
media_image1.png
401
490
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 Annotated Fig. 6 from Sullivan
PNG
media_image2.png
368
497
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 Annotated Fig. 2 from Sullivan
Claim 14-16 and 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by NPL: Bobeka Skill Builder - YouTube 08122022.
Regarding claim 14, Bobeka discloses an adjustable modular support assembly (see annotated figures, adjustable with different configurations) for a vehicle (title of video, for a van), the support assembly comprising: a first support board (see annotated Figure screenshot at 2:18 of video), the first support board having a first substantially planar body (see annotated Figure screenshot at 2:18 of video) including a first support face and a second support face (see annotated Figure screenshot at 2:18 of video, upper face and there would be lower face on the opposite side underneath), first and second opposed side edges (see annotated Figure screenshot at 2:18 of video), first and second opposed end edges (see annotated Figure screenshot at 2:18 of video), and four corners (see annotated Figure screenshot at 2:18 of video, corners between the edges, also see annotated Figure at 2:12 of video), each of the four corners being disposed between one side edge and one end edge (see annotated Figure screenshot at 2:18 and 2:12 of video), the first substantially planar body defining a lateral axis and a longitudinal axis (see annotated Figure screenshot at 2:18 of video); a second support board (see annotated Figure screenshot at 2:18 of video), 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 (see annotated Figure screenshot at 2:18 of video, similar to the first support board, 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 first support rail (see annotated Figure screenshot at 2:12 of video), the first support rail comprising a substantially planar first rail body (see annotated Figure screenshot at 2:12 of video), a first foot (see annotated Figure screenshot at 2:12 of video, protrusion at the bottom forward end) proximate a first end of the substantially planar first rail body and a second foot (see annotated Figure screenshot at 2:12 of video, protrusion at the bottom rear end) proximate a second end of the substantially planar first rail body, the substantially planar first rail body including a first edge (see annotated Figure screenshot at 2:12 of video) that is adapted to at least partially support at least one of the first support board (see annotated Figure screenshot at 2:12 of video) and the second support board.
PNG
media_image3.png
720
1184
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3 annotated Figure screenshot at 2:18 of Bobeka video
PNG
media_image4.png
570
757
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 annotated Figure screenshot at 2:12 of Bobeka video
Regarding claim 15, Bobeka discloses the adjustable modular support assembly of claim 14, wherein the first support board comprises a first opening (see annotated Figure screenshot at 2:12 of video, first side edge is the edge adjacent the first edge of the rail) proximate a first side edge and a second opening (see annotated Figure screenshot at 2:12 of video, first end edge is a rear edge) proximate a first end edge.
Regarding claim 16, Bobeka discloses the adjustable modular support assembly of claim 15, further comprising at least two openings (see annotated Figure screenshot at 2:18 of video) proximate the first side edge (see annotated Figure screenshot at 2:18 of video, first side edge of second support board).
Regarding claim 19, Bobeka discloses the adjustable modular support assembly of claim 14, wherein the first edge of the substantially planar first rail body includes a plurality of pegs (see annotated Figure screenshot at 2:12 of video) extending from the first edge in a direction (see annotated Figure screenshot at 2:12 of video, upward direction) opposite to one of the first foot and the second foot.
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.
Claims 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Derbes et al. (US 8840166 B1).
Regarding claim 24, Sullivan 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.
Derbes teaches a tailgate extension board (Derbes, Fig. 1-2, Fig. 2 shows the board extends over the tailgate), the tailgate extension board comprising a substantially planar body (Derbes, Fig. 1) a first end edge (Derbes, Fig. 1-2, rear edge) and a second end edge (Derbes, Fig. 1-2, front edge), and a plurality of slots (Derbes, Fig. 1-2, two slots 21) proximate the first end edge.
Derbes is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle rear storage means as Sullivan.
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 Sullivan to incorporate the teachings of Derbes with a reasonable expectation of success and have an extension board. Doing so provides easier access to item stored further inside the vehicle and under the boards, and prevents hard to clean spillages and stains from getting on the floor.
Regarding claim 26, Sullivan discloses the adjustable modular support assembly of claim 14, but fails to disclose 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.
Derbes teaches a first slider board (Derbes, Fig. 1 and abstract), the first slider board including a substantially planar bottom (Derbes, 12 in Fig. 1) having a first end edge and a second end edge (Derbes, Fig. 2, rear edge and front edge), a first side edge and a second side edge (Derbes, Fig. 2, left edge and right edge), and an opening (Derbes, 21 in Fig. 1-2) proximate the first end edge, the opening being adapted for grasping by a user (Derbes, Col. 7 lines 53-56) 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 (after combination, since Derbes teaches the slider installed on a vehicle floor, and when install on the floor of Sullivan, the slider would be underneath the support boards of Sulllivan).
Derbes is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle rear storage means as Sullivan.
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 Sullivan to incorporate the teachings of Derbes with a reasonable expectation of success and have a slider board. Doing so provides easier access to item stored further inside the vehicle and under the boards, and prevents hard to clean spillages and stains from getting on the floor.
Claims 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bobeka.
Regarding claim 17, Bobeka discloses the adjustable modular support assembly of claim 16, wherein the two openings are spaced (Bobeka, see annotated Figure screenshot at 2:18 of video).
Bobeka fails to disclose spaced by approximately one half the length of a side edge of the substantially planar body.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the openings such that they are spaced by approximately one half the length of a side edge of the substantially planar body, 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 sufficient amount of material between the openings to maintain structural integrity and allows easier manipulation by user.
Regarding claim 18, Bobeka discloses the adjustable modular support assembly of claim 17, wherein a first opening (Bobeka, see annotated Figure screenshot at 2:18 of video) and a second opening (Bobeka, see annotated Figure screenshot at 2:18 of video).
Bobeka fails to disclose the first opening is centered approximately 1/4 the total length of the first side edge between a first end edge and a second end edge, and the second opening is centered approximately 3/4 of the total length of the first side edge between the first end edge and the second 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 rearrange the openings such they are 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 sufficient amount of material between the openings to maintain structural integrity and allows easier manipulation by user.
Regarding claim 20, Bobeka discloses the adjustable modular support assembly of claim 19, wherein at least two pegs in the plurality of pegs are spaced from one another (Bobeka, see annotated Figure screenshot at 2:12 of video).
Bobeka fails to disclose spaced by approximately half of a side edge length of the first support board.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the size of the pegs such that they are spaced by approximately half of a side edge length of the first support board, 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 ensures enough spacing available for other pegs in between the two pegs, therefore provides a strong joint.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bobeka as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Lewis et al. (US 20160258462 A1).
Regarding claim 29, Bobeka discloses the adjustable modular support assembly of claim 14, wherein one of the first support board and the second support board further comprises a laterally oriented opening (Bobeka, see annotated Figure screenshot at 2:12 of video).
Bobeka fails to disclose a lateral clip extends through the laterally oriented opening and also receives the first edge of the first rail body in a slot formed in the lateral clip.
Lewis teaches a lateral clip (Lewis, 106 in Fig. 4) extends through the laterally oriented opening (Lewis, Fig. 4) and also receives the first edge of the first rail body in a slot (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) formed in the lateral clip.
Lewis is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle storage board joints as Bobeka.
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 Bobeka 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 adhesives 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 1-2, 5-6, and 11 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 at least one corner is adapted to receive a vehicle tailgate bulkhead (Smith, see annotated Fig. 1, the corner forms cutout contour) 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).
PNG
media_image5.png
537
773
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 5 Annotated Fig. 1 from Smith
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.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Smith in view of Barnhart teaches the adjustable modular support assembly of claim 1, wherein all four corners of the first substantially planar body are adapted to receive a vehicle tailgate bulkhead, and all four corners of the second substantially planar body are adapted to receive a vehicle tailgate bulkhead (Smith, Fig. 1 and 3-4, 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).
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 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_image6.png
325
676
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Figure 6 Annotated Fig. 12 from Smith
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 surface (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_image7.png
267
609
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Figure 7 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 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).
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 20210146844 A1)
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 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 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.
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 rear storage assemblies having support boards.
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