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 because the drawings have poor line quality and thus fail to meet the requirements of 37 CFR 1.84(L). Note that the drawings must be viewed in the USPTO Patent Center in order to see this problem. See example below, as well. The drawings likely contain grayscale elements, which cause image degradation in the USPTO electronic filing system. Drawings must be entirely bi-tonal, containing only black or white color values.
PNG
media_image1.png
256
422
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 1-17 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.
With regard to claim 1, the phrase “a second cargo side frame also including the plurality of side rails coupled together with the plurality of cargo brackets” is confusing. The limitation seems to imply that the second side contains the same rails and the same brackets that the first side has. This cannot be true, as each side has its own rails and brackets. The claims are being examined according to this understanding.
With regard to claim 12, the limitation “each of the rails of the first cargo side frame coupled together by a first bracket” in lines 3-4 is confusing. Two brackets are required to form the U-shape as shown below in the annotated Figure. The same reasoning applies to the limitations “each of the rails of the intermediate frame coupled together by a second bracket” (four brackets are required to form the intermediate frame) in lines 11-12, and “each of the rails of the roof frame coupled together by a third bracket” (again, four brackets are required to form the roof frame) in lines 17-18.
PNG
media_image2.png
284
636
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Additionally, in claim 12, the limitation “each of the rails of the second cargo side frame also coupled together by the first bracket” is confusing. The second cargo side frame is opposite the first side frame, and thus it cannot be connected by the same same bracket as the first frame.
With regard to claim 18, the limitations “each of the plurality of roof rails coupled together with a roof bracket,” “each of the plurality of intermediate rails coupled together with an intermediate bracket,” and “each of the plurality of side rails coupled together with a cargo bracket” is confusing. Each frame is connected by at least four brackets, rather than one bracket, as implied by these claim limitations. The claims are being examined as best understood.
Claims 2-11, 13-17, 19, and 20 are rejected based on their dependence upon rejected claims.
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 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. (US 2022/0162879, hereinafter Davis) in view of Rowe (US 4,201,413).
With regard to claim 1, Davis discloses a truck bed camper comprising:
a first cargo side frame (see annotated Fig. provided below) including a plurality of side rails coupled together with a plurality of cargo brackets (paragraph 0038 states that the elements shown in Fig. 5B can be connected with brackets), the first cargo side frame configured to secure to a truck bed of a truck (e.g. Abstract, “a lower frame portion coupleable with a bed of a truck,” see also elements 190);
a second cargo side frame (see annotated Fig. below) also including the plurality of side rails coupled together with the plurality of cargo brackets (paragraph 0038, “the first side member 150, the second side member 152, and the first end member 154 of the lower frame portion 108 of the frame assembly 102 can be configured to be removably coupleable together using connectors that can include a plurality of bolts or screws and/or a plurality of brackets. Further, the first side member 160, the second side member 162, the first end member 164, and the second end member 166 of the upper frame portion 110 of the frame assembly 102 can be configured to be removably coupleable together using connectors that can include a plurality of bolts or screws and/or a plurality of brackets”), the second cargo side frame spaced apart from the first cargo side frame and configured to secure to the truck bed of the truck (e.g. Abstract, “a lower frame portion coupleable with a bed of a truck,” see also elements 190);
an intermediate frame (see annotated Fig. below) including a plurality of intermediate rails coupled together with a plurality of intermediate brackets (see Fig. below), the intermediate frame supported on the first and second cargo side frames (see Fig. below) and having at least one bed panel (125), wherein the intermediate frame cantilevers from the first and second cargo side frames (see cantilevered portion on, for example, the left side of Fig. 2A);
a roof frame (see Fig. below) including a plurality of roof rails coupled together with a plurality of roof brackets (see Fig. below), the roof frame having at least one roof panel and moveably disposed above the intermediate frame (122), the roof frame moveable between at least a collapsed configuration (Fig. 1), whereby the roof frame is positioned directly on top of the intermediate frame, and a raised configuration (Fig. 2), whereby the roof frame is spaced apart from the intermediate frame; and
at least one hinged roof support (230, 232—note that the hinges are at the ends of the hydraulic cylinders, where they attach to the frame) coupled between the intermediate frame and the roof frame and configured to move the roof frame between the collapsed configuration and the raised configuration.
PNG
media_image3.png
424
762
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
314
626
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Davis fails to teach that the roof frame is substantially parallel to the intermediate frame in both the collapsed configuration and the raised configuration.
Rowe discloses a pickup camper having a pop-up roof that remains parallel in the collapsed and raised configuration.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Davis by providing a parallel pop-up configuration as taught by Rowe, rather than a wedge configuration, in order to provide consistent headroom in the sleeping area.
With regard to claim 11, Davis teaches a cab wall (276) extending between the first and second cargo side frames, the cab wall supporting the at least one bed panel (124, see Fig. 1C).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Rowe as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kuschmeader et al. (US 2023/0286444, hereinafter Kuschmeader).
With regard to claim 2, Davis fails to teach that the brackets are formed from a different material than the rails.
Kuschmeader teaches a frame for attachment to a pickup truck bed where the rail members (112, 110) are extruded and the bracket members (108a, 108b) are cast (see paragraph 0049). Note that the extruded and cast materials are being interpreted to meet the broad limitation of “different” materials, since they are manufactured in a different way.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Davis by making the brackets of cast material and the rails of extruded material, as taught by Kuschmeader, with a reasonable expectation of success due to the elongated shape of the rails and the relatively short, complex shape of the brackets.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Kuschmeader and Rowe.
With regard to claim 18, Davis teaches a pop-up frame for a truck bed camper comprising:
a plurality of roof rails defining a roof frame (122), each of the plurality of roof rails coupled together with a roof bracket (see “roof bracket” in the annotated Fig. above);
a plurality of intermediate rails defining an intermediate frame (124) disposed below the roof frame, each of the plurality of intermediate rails coupled together with an intermediate bracket (see “intermediate bracket” in the annotated Fig. above);
a plurality of side rails defining a pair of cargo side frames disposed below the intermediate frame (see cargo sides as identified in the annotated Fig. above), each of the plurality of side rails coupled together with a cargo bracket (paragraph 0038); and
a plurality of hinged roof supports (230, 232—note that the hinges are at the end of each strut) extending between the intermediate frame and the roof frame, the plurality of hinged roof supports configured to move the roof frame between at least a raised configuration and a collapsed configuration with respect to the intermediate frame.
Davis fails to teach that the brackets are formed from different material than the rails, or that the roof frame is substantially parallel to the intermediate frame in the raised and collapsed configurations.
Kuschmeader discloses a frame for attachment to a pickup truck bed, in which the rails (110, 112) are extruded and the elbows (108a, 108b) are cast (paragraph 0049). Note that the extruded and cast materials are being interpreted to meet the broad limitation of “different” materials, since they are manufactured in a different way.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Davis by making the brackets of cast material and the rails of extruded material, as taught by Kuschmeader, with a reasonable expectation of success due to the elongated shape of the rails and the relatively short, complex shape of the brackets.
Davis fails to teach that the roof frame is substantially parallel to the intermediate frame in both the collapsed configuration and the raised configuration.
Rowe discloses a pickup camper having a pop-up roof that remains parallel in the collapsed and raised configuration.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Davis by providing a parallel pop-up configuration as taught by Rowe, rather than a wedge configuration, in order to provide consistent headroom in the sleeping area.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 3-10, 19, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With regard to claim 12, the closest prior art is that of Davis.
As best understood, Davis teaches a truck bed camper comprising:
a first cargo side frame having a first bottom rail, a first front vertical rail, and a first rear vertical rail forming a U-shape (see annotated Fig. below), each of the rails of the first cargo side frame coupled together by a first bracket (paragraph 0038);
a second cargo side frame spaced apart from the first cargo side frame, the second cargo side frame having a second bottom rail, a second front vertical rail, and a second rear vertical rail forming a U-shape (see Fig. below), each of the rails of the second cargo side frame also coupled together by the first bracket (paragraph 0038);
an intermediate frame (124) having a first front rail (204), a first rear rail (206), a first side rail (200), and a second side rail (202) forming a rectangular shape (e.g. Fig. 2A), each of the rails of the intermediate frame coupled together by a second bracket (as best understood, there are brackets at each corner of the intermediate frame—see “intermediate bracket” in annotated Fig. above), the first and second side rails supported on the respective first and second cargo side frames such that the first and second side rails are cantilevered and the first front rail is offset from the first and second cargo side frames (see Fig. 1B, for example, which shows front rail 204 offset and cantilevered off of the cargo side frames);
a roof frame (122) having a second front rail, a second rear rail, a third side rail, and a fourth side rail forming a rectangular shape (all rails of roof frame 122 shown in Figs. 2A and 2B), each of the rails of the roof frame coupled together by a third bracket (as best understood, there are brackets at each corner of the roof frame—see “roof bracket” in annotated Fig. above); and
at least one hinged roof support (230, 232—note that the hinges are at the ends of each strut) coupled between the intermediate frame and the roof frame, the roof frame being selectively vertically moveable relative to the intermediate frame via the at least one hinged roof support (compare roof position in Figs. 1 and 2).
PNG
media_image5.png
220
644
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Davis fails to teach or suggest the claimed relationships between the cross-sections of the frames. Davis fails to teach the rails of the first and second cargo side frames all having a first cross-sectional profile (the cargo side rails have various cross-sections according to the figures), the rails of the intermediate frame all having a second cross-sectional profile (Davis shows the intermediate frame 124 having a certain cross-sectional profile in Fig. 6B, but the front rail has a different cross-section than side rail—see annotated Fig. below) that is different than the first cross-sectional profile; the rails of the roof frame all having a third cross-sectional profile that is different than the first and second cross-sectional profiles (see annotated Fig. below).
PNG
media_image6.png
584
524
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
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