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 .
DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This is the first Office Action on the merits of Application 18/443,254 filed on 2/15/24. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/15/24 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 5-7 & 15-18 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.
Claims 5 & 15
Line 2: “attached to the left side, the top side, and the bottom side”
It is unclear if the vertical rails are attached to the frame’s, first ,second, front, or back side or a different element with different sides.
Claims 6 & 16
Lines 3 & 4: “where the middle rail assemblies are off-set….when assemblies”
It is unclear what “when assemblies” is referring to. It appears the middle wheels are offset to left and right vertical rails when assembled.
Claims 7 & 17
Lines 2 & 3: “the front rail”
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the claimed limitation.
Line 3: “the back rail”
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the claimed limitation.
Line 3: “the top”
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the claimed limitation.
Line 4: “bottom rail”
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the claimed limitation.
Claim 18 is also rejected to for being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 1, 5 & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 9,789,800 to Thygesen.
Claim 1
Thygesen discloses in Figs 1-5,
A cargo bed for an automobile, the cargo bed comprising: a frame having a first side (e.g. 34a, Fig. 4), a second side (e.g. 34b), a front side (e.g. 36, Figs. 1-2) and a back side (e.g. 38); a top face (e.g. 32) supported by the frame, wherein the top face is configured to support cargo; a plurality of vertical rails (e.g. 62) positioned in parallel with the first side and the second side and under the top face (Fig. 4), wherein each of the plurality of the vertical rails comprises: a vertical channel (e.g. 60) disposed therein; a wheel assembly (e.g. 42) positioned in the vertical channel; a plurality of rail mating connectors (Fig 3, see ends securing rails via bolts/screw) positioned at each end of the vertical rails, wherein the rail mating connector is configured to mate with the front side and the back side of the frame at predetermined positions so that the vertical rails are adjustable horizontally along the front side and the back side (e.g. multiple positions bolts/screws are present for installing rails at the desired position).
Claim 5
The cargo bed in claim 1, wherein the plurality of vertical rails comprise a left vertical rail attached to the left side, the top side, and the bottom side, two middle vertical rails connected to the top side and the bottom side, and a right vertical rail attached to the left side, the top side and the bottom side (see multiple rails shown in Fig 3).
Claim 7
The cargo bed of claim 1, wherein the rail mating connector comprises a plurality of mounting apertures on the vertical rail and a plurality of mating apertures on the front rail and the back rail, and a bolt configured to connect the vertical rail to the top and bottom rail at different positions on the top and the bottom rail (see Fig 3, multiple bolts/screws are utilized to secure the rails at various positions).
Claims 1-3, 7 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 4,993,088 to Chudik.
Claim 1
Chudik discloses in Figs 1-11,
A cargo bed for an automobile, the cargo bed comprising: a frame having a first side (e.g. 16), a second side (e.g. 16), a front side (e.g. 20) and a back side (e.g. 19); a top face (e.g. 13) supported by the frame, wherein the top face is configured to support cargo; a plurality of vertical rails (e.g. 15) positioned in parallel with the first side and the second side and under the top face (Figs. 2a & 4), wherein each of the plurality of the vertical rails comprises: a vertical channel (e.g. area above 25) disposed therein; a wheel assembly (e.g. 28, base of wheels (e.g. 25) in vertical channel) positioned in the vertical channel; a plurality of rail mating connectors (e.g. 22 & 24) positioned at each end of the vertical rails, wherein the rail mating connector is configured to mate with the front side and the back side of the frame at predetermined positions so that the vertical rails are adjustable horizontally along the front side and the back side (e.g. multiple positions bolts/screws are present for installing rails at the desired position).
Claim 2
The cargo bed of claim 1, further comprising a leg assembly, wherein the leg assembly comprises a bow leg assembly and a stern leg assembly (e.g. 35, Fig 4), wherein the leg assembly is configured to fold into recesses of the frame when in a stowed position in an automobile bed (see folded position Fig 4., stowed Fig 2a).
Claim 3
The cargo bed of claim 2, wherein the leg assembly, in a stowed positioned, is positioned approximately flush with the vertical rails, and positioned above the wheel assembly when in the stowed position to allow for the bed to be rolled in to and out of the automobile bed (Column 4, lines 37-55).
Claim 7
The cargo bed of claim 1, wherein the rail mating connector comprises a plurality of mounting apertures on the vertical rail and a plurality of mating apertures on the front rail and the back rail, and a bolt configured to connect the vertical rail to the top and bottom rail at different positions on the top and the bottom rail (see Figs 2a-2b, multiple bolts/screws (e.g. 24) are utilized to secure the rails at various positions).
Claim 10
The cargo bed of claim 2, wherein the leg assemblies comprise a pivot joint (e.g. 41a) configured to allow folding and unfolding of the leg assemblies (see Figs 3 & 4 for unfolded and folded configuration).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 9,789,800 to Thygesen.
Claim 6
Thygesen discloses a cargo bed for an automobile with a frame, a top face, plurality of vertical rails with a vertical channel, wheel assembly and plurality of rail mating connectors. However, Thygesen does not explicitly disclose that the left vertical rail has four wheel assemblies, the two middle vertical rails have three wheel assemblies, and the right vertical rail has four wheel assemblies. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the claims were effectively filed to have the left vertical rail has four wheel assemblies, the two middle vertical rails have three wheel assemblies, and the right vertical rail has four wheel assemblies, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 4, 8 & 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 4,993,088 to Chudik in view of U.S. Patent 11,052,808 to Frizzell.
Claim 4
Chudik discloses a cargo bed for an automobile with a frame, a top face, plurality of vertical rails with a vertical channel, wheel assembly and plurality of rail mating connectors. However, Chudik does not explicitly disclose that the wheel assembly is adjustable vertically with the channel and the rail assemblies has sockets in the channels for the user to adjust the position of the wheel assemblies. Frizzell however, teaches adjustable wheel assemblies (Fig 16, 1604) fitted into sockets (e.g. 1602). Therefore it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the claims were effectively filed to utilize the teaching of adjustable wheel assemblies as taught by Frizzell and modifying Chudik for the benefit of adaptability of the cargo bed for different loads or purposes as desired by a user.
Claim 8
The cargo bed of claim 4, wherein the wheel assembly comprises: a wheel body (e.g. 28); internal shaft (e.g. 25) supporting the wheel body, wherein the internal shaft is connected to bearings (e.g. 28); a yolk (e.g. 23a) connected to the bearings, wherein the yolk is connectable to the sockets in the channel.
Claim 9
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the claims were effectively filed to have the wheel bodies to have a width between 1.5 inches and 10 inches, since it has been held that where the general working conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 11 & 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 9,789,800 to Thygesen in view of U.S. Patent 8,857,880 to Kalergis et al.
Claim 11
Thygesen discloses in Figs 1-5,
A method for removing a cargo bed from a cargo area to load and unload cargo, the method comprising providing a frame having a first side (e.g. 34a), a second side (e.g. 34b), a front side (e.g. 36) and a back side (e.g. 38); a top face (e.g. 32) supported by the frame; adjusting a width of a plurality of vertical rails (e.g. 62) positioned in parallel with the first side and the second side and under the top face (Fig. 4), wherein each of the plurality of the vertical rails comprises: a vertical channel (e.g. 60) disposed therein; a wheel assembly (e.g. 42) positioned in the vertical channel; a plurality of rail mating connectors (Fig 3, see ends securing rails via bolts/screw) positioned at each end of the vertical rails.
Thygesen however, does not explicitly disclose wherein the rail mating connector is configured to mate with the front side and the back side of the frame at predetermined positions so that the vertical rails are adjustable horizontally along the front side and the back side; pulling, pushing, or both, the cargo bed into and out of an automobile. Kalergis however, teaches in Figs 17 & 18, rails that can be adjustable in different horizontal positions (e.g. via 152). Therefore it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the claims were effectively filed to utilize the teaching of adjustable rails as taught by Kalergis and modifying Thygesen for the benefit of adaptability of the cargo bed for different loads or purposes as desired by a user.
Claim 15
The method of claim 11, wherein the plurality of vertical rails comprise a left vertical rail attached to the left side, the top side, and the bottom side, two middle vertical rails connected to the top side and the bottom side, and a right vertical rail attached to the left side, the top side and the bottom side (see multiple rails shown in Fig 3 of Thygesen).
Claim 16
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the claims were effectively filed to have the left vertical rail has four wheel assemblies, the two middle vertical rails have three wheel assemblies, and the right vertical rail has four wheel assemblies, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 17
The method of claim 11, wherein the rail mating connector comprises a plurality of mounting apertures on the vertical rail and a plurality of mating apertures on the front rail and the back rail, and a bolt configured to connect the vertical rail to the top and bottom rail at different positions on the top and the bottom rail (see Fig 3 of Thygesen, multiple bolts/screws are utilized to secure the rails at various positions).
Claims 11-13, 17 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 4,993,088 to Chudik in view of U.S. Patent 8,857,880 to Kalergis et al.
Claim 11
Chudik discloses in Figs 1-11,
A method for removing a cargo bed from a cargo area to load and unload cargo, the method comprising providing a frame having a first side (e.g. 16), a second side (e.g. 16), a front side (e.g. 20) and a back side (e.g. 19); a top face (e.g. 13) supported by the frame; adjusting a width of a plurality of vertical rails (e.g. 15) positioned in parallel with the first side and the second side and under the top face (Figs 2a & 4), wherein each of the plurality of the vertical rails comprises: a vertical channel (e.g. area above 25) disposed therein; a wheel assembly (e.g. 42) positioned in the vertical channel; a plurality of rail mating connectors (e.g. 22 & 24) positioned at each end of the vertical rails.
Chudik however, does not explicitly disclose wherein the rail mating connector is configured to mate with the front side and the back side of the frame at predetermined positions so that the vertical rails are adjustable horizontally along the front side and the back side; pulling, pushing, or both, the cargo bed into and out of an automobile. Kalergis however, teaches in Figs 17 & 18, rails that can be adjustable in different horizontal positions (e.g. via 152). Therefore it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the claims were effectively filed to utilize the teaching of adjustable rails as taught by Kalergis and modifying Chudik for the benefit of adaptability of the cargo bed for different loads or purposes as desired by a user.
Claim 12
Chudik discloses, the method of claim 11, folding a leg assembly (e.g. 35, Fig 4), into a recesses of the frame when in a stowed position in an automobile bed (see folded position Fig 4., stowed Fig 2a).
Claim 13
Chudik discloses, the method of claim 12, wherein the leg assembly, in a stowed positioned, is positioned approximately flush with the vertical rails, and positioned above the wheel assembly when in the stowed position to allow for the bed to be rolled in to and out of the automobile bed (Column 4, lines 37-55).
Claim 17
Chudik discloses, the method of claim 11, wherein the rail mating connector comprises a plurality of mounting apertures on the vertical rail and a plurality of mating apertures on the front rail and the back rail, and a bolt configured to connect the vertical rail to the top and bottom rail at different positions on the top and the bottom rail (see Figs 2a-2b, multiple bolts/screws (e.g. 24) are utilized to secure the rails at various positions).
Claim 20
Chudik discloses, the method of claim 12, wherein the leg assemblies comprise a pivot joint (e.g. 42a) configured to allow folding and unfolding of the leg assemblies (see Figs 3 & 4 for unfolded and folded configuration).
Claims 14, 18 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 4,993,088 to Chudik in view of U.S. Patent 8,857,880 to Kalergis et al. in view of U.S. Patent 11,052,808 to Frizzell.
Claim 14
Chudik in view of Kalergis discloses a cargo bed for an automobile with a frame, a top face, plurality of vertical rails with a vertical channel, wheel assembly and plurality of rail mating connectors. However, Chudik in view of Kalergis does not explicitly disclose that the wheel assembly is adjustable vertically with the channel and the rail assemblies has sockets in the channels for the user to adjust the position of the wheel assemblies. Frizzell however, teaches adjustable wheel assemblies (Fig 16, 1604) fitted into sockets (e.g. 1602). Therefore it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the claims were effectively filed to utilize the teaching of adjustable wheel assemblies as taught by Frizzell and modifying Chudik in view of Kalergis for the benefit of adaptability of the cargo bed for different loads or purposes as desired by a user.
Claim 18
Chudik teaches, the method of claim 15, wherein the wheel assembly comprises: a wheel body (e.g. 28); internal shaft (e.g. 25) supporting the wheel body, wherein the internal shaft is connected to bearings (e.g. 28); a yolk (e.g. 23a) connected to the bearings, wherein the yolk is connectable to the sockets in the channel.
Claim 19
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the claims were effectively filed to have the wheel bodies to have a width between 1.5 inches and 10 inches, since it has been held that where the general working conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUAN LE whose telephone number is (571)270-3122. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm PST.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached on 571-270-3415. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HUAN LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655