Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/513,360

LIFT SYSTEM FOR MODIFYING SEPARATION DISTANCE BETWEEN A VEHICLE COVER AND A VEHICLE BED

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Nov 17, 2023
Examiner
FULLER, ROBERT EDWARD
Art Unit
3676
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
654 granted / 830 resolved
+26.8% vs TC avg
Minimal +3% lift
Without
With
+2.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
40 currently pending
Career history
870
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§103
37.2%
-2.8% vs TC avg
§102
30.8%
-9.2% vs TC avg
§112
24.0%
-16.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 830 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Specification Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the use of the implied phrase “is provided.” Examiner suggests the following changes: A system for modifying a separation distance between a vehicle cover and a vehicle bed actuatable to extend the each lift member and a passive actuator operable to extend the each lift member. Actuating the active actuators of first ones of the lift members causes the passive actuators of second ones of the lift members to extend to move the vehicle cover away from the vehicle bed by a first separation distance. Actuating the active actuators of the second ones of the lift members causes the passive actuators of the first ones of the lift members to extend to move the vehicle cover away from the vehicle bed by a second separation distance. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph 0035, line 18, “such stabilizing grips” should likely be changed to --such as stabilizing grips--. Paragraph 0043, line 22, “couple” should be changed to --couples--. Paragraph 0119, lines 2-3 state that the retractable bed is “shown generally at 730 in Figures 20 and 21.” However, Fig. 20 does not show the bed. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Interpretation The claims contain the terms “active actuator” and “passive actuator.” These terms are not explicitly device in the specification. The term “active actuator” is being interpreted to mean any actuator that requires an external energy input into the actuator to extend the actuator (such as electrical energy or hydraulic pressure from a source outside of the actuator itself). Examples provided in paragraph 0039 are an electric linear actuator, a pneumatic actuator, a hydraulic actuator, a multi-stage linear actuator, a direct drive rotary motor actuator and slide guides, and a system of pulleys and cables with electrically powered rollers. The term “passive actuator” is being interpreted to mean any actuator that has an energy source contained within the actuator itself (such as a compressed gas or compressed spring). Examples provided in paragraph 0040 are a gas strut or gas spring, coil spring, spring strut or a combination of a gas and spring strut. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The phrase “the each lift member” in lines 5 and 6 is grammatically awkward. It is suggested that this phrase be changed to --[[the]] each lift member--. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. With regard to claims 1 and 12, each of these claims recites variations of the idea that actuating the active actuator of a lift member causes the passive actuator of a different lift member to extend. While this language is found in the specification, it contradicts the operation of the device as discussed in the Detailed Description. For example, Fig. 12 indicates that all of the active actuators are actuated individually via signals 820, 822, etc. Therefore, each active actuator directly causes its own corresponding passive actuator to move (not to extend) by virtue of the passive actuator being attached to the moving part of the active actuator. Additionally, the active actuator does not cause the passive actuator to extend. The passive actuator contains an energy source within itself, such as a compressed gas or compressed spring, but this energy must be released by the user. According to the examiner’s understanding, the active actuator does not itself cause the release of the energy within the passive actuator. The passive actuator is “kept in a retracted configuration by a weight of the vehicle cover 106” (Specification, Paragraph 0040). The active actuator does not relieve the weight of the vehicle cover acting on the passive actuator. An outside force (likely from the user) must do this. Claims 2-11 and 13-20 are rejected based on their dependence upon rejected claims. Conclusion Note that the claims were not rejected under the prior art. The closest prior art is that of Bruestle et al. (US 2011/0001333, hereinafter Bruestle). Bruestle teaches a lift system (40) for modifying a separation distance between a vehicle cover (30) and a bed (20). Bruestle teaches a plurality of lift members (see Fig. 9), where each lift member has an active actuator (130, 140, 150, 160). Bruestle also teaches that each lifting member has a bracket member (170, 180, 190, 200). However, these bracket members are not “passive actuators” as required by the claims. Bruestle’s bracket members can be used to lock the lift member in a particular position, but they do not have stored energy that can move the cover an additional distance beyond the capability of the active actuator. PNG media_image1.png 482 653 media_image1.png Greyscale The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references provide further examples of bed cover lifting devices. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E FULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6300. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM - 5:30PM. 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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at 571-270-7741. 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. /ROBERT E FULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 17, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12589696
APPARATUS, SYSTEM, AND METHOD FOR VEHICLE CENTER CONSOLE LID STORAGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590496
APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR SUPPORTING A COLLAR REGION OF A BLAST HOLE DURING DRILLING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584377
DELAYED OPENING PORT ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584388
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR OPTIMIZATION OF WELLBORE OPERATIONS OF PRODUCING WELLS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577857
SINGLE TRIP COMPLETION SYSTEM WITH OPEN HOLE GRAVEL PACK GO/STOP PUMPING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
79%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (+2.6%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 830 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month