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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 7-13 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bernardo (US 5,350,213).
Regarding Claim 7, Bernardo discloses a tonneau cover for a vehicle, the tonneau cover comprising: an inner panel 14 comprising a receptacle; and an end panel 30 comprising: an engager 42 (Fig. 5) configured to releasably engage the receptacle of the inner panel; sliders 74 at opposing sides of the end panel; and a locking assembly comprising: retention tabs 56 each retractably extending through a corresponding one of the sliders; and a release handle 36 configured to retract each of the retention tabs towards the corresponding one of the sliders when the release handle is actuated.
Regarding Claim 8, Bernardo discloses anchors 82 (Figs. 7 and 8) coupled to a slat of the end panel 30; and springs 98 each configured to bias a corresponding one of the retention tabs 56 away from a corresponding one of the anchors.
Regarding Claim 9, the sliders 74 define holders 70, 72 (end tabs; Fig. 5) each configured to secure a corresponding one of the anchors, wherein the holders extend into the slat (see Fig. 8; end tabs secure the anchors 82 on each side while deployed).
Regarding Claim 10, the retention tabs 56 of Bernardo each define an inner surface 64 (Fig. 3) extending transversely to the sliders and an outer surface extending orthogonally (parallel sides opposite each other at 64) to the sliders.
Regarding Claims 11 and 15, Bernardo discloses the use of an end seal 52 opposite the engager 42 (Fig. 6).
Regarding Claims 12 and 13, Bernardo discloses a chain of additional inner panels attached via the receptacles (Fig. 1), and each of the panels includes engagers and sliders.
Regarding Claim 16, Bernardo discloses a method of assembling a tonneau cover, the method comprising: inserting an inner panel 14 at least partially into rails 20, 22 of a vehicle to partially cover a cargo area; engaging receptacles 42 of the inner panel with engagers 42 of an end panel 30; inserting the end panel 30 into the rails 20, 22 while advancing the inner panel along the rails to further cover the cargo area (rolling up); and engaging recesses 76 defined by the rails with retention tabs 56 of the end panel 30 to lock the end panel with respect to the rails.
Regarding Claim 17, inserting the end panel 30 into the rails comprises retracting the retention tabs 56 to be within the rails (retention tabs only lock in the retract position and must be retracted into the slider to push back).
Regarding Claim 18, retracting the retention tabs 56 comprises overcoming a bias (via springs) to extend the retention tabs away from each other.
Regarding Claim 19, closing the tailgate of Bernardo abuts the end panel 30 and closes the cargo area.
Regarding Claim 20, Bernardo further includes actuating a release handle 36 to retract the retention tabs 56 out of the recesses 76; removing the end panel from the rails while retracting the inner panel along the rails; and removing the inner panel from the rails.
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) 1-6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernardo (US 5,350,213) in view of Weng.
Regarding Claim 1, Bernardo discloses an end panel for a tonneau cover, the end panel 30 comprising: an engager 42 configured to releasably engage a receptacle of an inner panel (Fig. 5); sliders 74 at opposing sides of the end panel (ends of panel 30 are sliders that are slid within the side rails 20, 22 of the system); and a locking assembly comprising: retention tabs 56 each retractably extending through a corresponding one of the sliders; a release handle 36; and a connection 38 connecting the release handle to the retention tabs and being configured to retract the retention tabs towards each other and into the sliders when the release handle is actuated. Bernardo discloses the use of rods 38 and not a cable to actuate the system. Weng discloses a latch system for a tailgate, including an end slat 123 (Fig. 4) with end sliders 110 and retention tabs 200 (Figs. 3 and 4), wherein the system is actuated between the handle 322 and the retention tabs 200 via a cable 310. Before the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the cable of Weng in place of the rods of Bernardo as a lighter weight option that is more cost effective and easy to replace should there be any issues.
Regarding Claim 2, Bernardo discloses anchors 82 (Figs. 7 and 8) coupled to a slat of the end panel 30; and springs 98 each configured to bias a corresponding one of the retention tabs 56 away from a corresponding one of the anchors.
Regarding Claim 3, the sliders 74 define holders 70, 72 (end tabs; Fig. 5) each configured to secure a corresponding one of the anchors, wherein the holders extend into the slat (see Fig. 8; end tabs secure the anchors 82 on each side while deployed).
Regarding Claim 4, the retention tabs 56 of Bernardo each define an inner surface 64 (Fig. 3) extending transversely to the sliders and an outer surface extending orthogonally (parallel sides opposite each other at 64) to the sliders.
Regarding Claim 5, Bernardo discloses that the end panel 30 is made of a slat (column 4, lines 64-68) and that the cable of Weng would travel within the salt just as the rods 38 of Bernardo do.
Regarding Claim 6, Bernardo discloses the use of an end seal 52 opposite the engager 42 (Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 14, Bernardo discloses the use of rods 38 and not a cable to actuate the system. Weng discloses a latch system for a tailgate, including an end slat 123 (Fig. 4) with end sliders 110 and retention tabs 200 (Figs. 3 and 4), wherein the system is actuated between the handle 322 and the retention tabs 200 via a cable 310. Before the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the cable of Weng in place of the rods of Bernardo as a lighter weight option that is more cost effective and easy to replace should there be any issues.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art relates to tonneau covers and the constructions including latches.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON S DANIELS whose telephone number is (571)270-1167. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 am - 5:00 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.
/JASON S DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612