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 because Figs. 1-39 do not have satisfactory reproduction characteristics 37 CFR 1.84 (l) and (m) detail the requirements of drawings:
(l) Character of lines, numbers, and letters. All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning.
m) Shading. The use of shading in views is encouraged if it aids in understanding the invention and if it does not reduce legibility. Shading is used to indicate the surface or shape of spherical, cylindrical, and conical elements of an object. Flat parts may also be lightly shaded. Such shading is preferred in the case of parts shown in perspective, but not for cross sections. See paragraph (h)(3) of this section. Spaced lines for shading are preferred. These lines must be thin, as few in number as practicable, and they must contrast with the rest of the drawings. As a substitute for shading, heavy lines on the shade side of objects can be used except where they superimpose on each other or obscure reference characters. Light should come from the upper left corner at an angle of 45°. Surface delineations should preferably be shown by proper shading. Solid black shading areas are not permitted, except when used to represent bar graphs or color.
Figs. 1-39 do not have durable, clean black lines. Additionally, the figures include shading that results in Figures with inadequate reproduction characteristics.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 4, and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3, lines 1-2, “the one or more of the plurality of vertical support structures” has no proper antecedent basis in the claims. Applicant has not previously referred to “a one or more of the plurality of vertical support structures.”
Claim 12 has a similar problem.
In claim 4, line 7-8, “the vertical support structure” has no proper antecedent basis in the claims. In lines 2-3, Applicant refers to “one or more of the plurality of the vertical support structures.” This objection could be overcome by changing the noted language to --the one or more vertical support structures--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 16 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.
In claim 5, Applicant recites “a connection point connecting the plurality of vertical support structures. . . wherein the connection point comprises hinges on a mounting plate.” This language suggests that all the vertical support structures are connected to one, same connecting point. However, this does not appear to be the case from Applicant’s drawings. Additionally, the language suggests that each connection point comprises multiple hinges on a mounting plate. This language is unclear. This rejection could be overcome by reciting --The system of claim 4, further comprising a plurality of connection points, each connection point respectively connecting a vertical support structure to the plurality of beams. . . wherein each connection point comprises a hinge on a mounting plate--.
In claim 16, Applicant use of plural terminology for “electric motors,” “gears,” “wheels,” and “pinions,” and only the singular for “rack” is confusing. It would appear that if multiple motors and pinions are used, then multiple racks would also be required. Additionally, Applicant indicates that this structure is used on “one or more of the plurality of vertical support structures.” It is not clear how multiple motors, wheels and pinions would be used on one vertical support structure.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 1, 10, 4, 4, and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,865,906, respectively, as outlined in the below table:
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 11,865,906
1. An integrated bed optimization system, comprising:
an adjustable frame comprising a plurality of beams; and
1. An integrated bed optimization system, comprising:
a frame, wherein the frame comprises a plurality of A-frames, each A-frame comprising a plurality of beams,
a plurality of vertical support structures coupled to the frame and configured to adjust one or more of a height and angle of the frame.
a plurality of vertical support structures coupled to the frame, each of the plurality of vertical support structures comprising: a vertical pillar; and a motor unit for extending the vertical pillar out of the sleeve to raise the frame and for retracting the vertical pillar into the sleeve to lower the frame.
2. The system of claim 1, further comprising:
one or more support sleeves configured to house the plurality of vertical support structures, and
(claim 1) each of the plurality of vertical support structures comprising: a vertical pillar; a support sleeve;
one or more motor units configured to adjust the height of the frame via extending and retracting the plurality of vertical support structures coupled to the frame in and out of the one or more support sleeves.
each of the plurality of vertical support structures comprising: . . . a motor unit for extending the vertical pillar out of the sleeve to raise the frame and for retracting the vertical pillar into the sleeve to lower the frame.
3. The system of claim 2, wherein movement of the one or more of the plurality of vertical support structures is configured to be independently controllable.
10. The system of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of vertical support structures can extend and retract independently of one another.
8. The system of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of beams comprises one or mounting slots on one or more sides of the beam configured to receive an attachment.
4. The system of claim 3, further comprising one or more tiedown attachments secured within a T-track mounting slot of a beam.
9. The system of claim 8, further comprising a fastening mechanism configured to couple the attachment to the one or more mounting slots.
4. The system of claim 3, further comprising one or more tiedown attachments secured within a T-track mounting slot of a beam.
21. The system of claim 1, further comprising an extendable drawer structure coupled to the frame and configured for additional storage space.
11. The system of claim 1, further comprising a drawer attached to the frame.
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 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Collins (US 2007/0278810).
With respect to claim 1, Collins discloses an integrated bed optimization system, comprising:
an adjustable frame 110/210 comprising a plurality of beams 112/212; and
a plurality of vertical support structures 134/136/154/156/234/236/254/256 coupled to the frame 110/210 and configured to adjust one or more of a height and angle of the frame (as shown in Figs. 2B and 2C of Collins).
With respect to claim 7, Collins discloses that the frame 112/212 is configured to be elevated higher than a cab of a pickup truck 10 to store items having a longer length than a length of the frame (Collins, paragraph [0023]; Fig. 2C).
Claims 1-4, 13, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Voglmayr (US 2009/0189403).
With respect to claim 1, Voglmayr discloses an integrated bed optimization system, comprising:
an adjustable frame 10 comprising a plurality of beams 26/26; and
a plurality of vertical support structures 16a-16d coupled to the frame 10 and configured to adjust one or more of a height and angle of the frame (Voglmayr, paragraphs [0041]-[0042]).
With respect to claim 2, Voglmayr discloses one or more support sleeves 18a-18d configured to house the plurality of vertical support structures 16a-16d (as shown in Figs. 3-4 of Voglmayr), and
one or more motor units configured to adjust the height of the frame via extending and retracting the plurality of vertical support structures coupled to the frame 10 in and out of the one or more support sleeves 18a-18d (Voglmayr, paragraph [0043]; Figs. 3-4).
With respect to claim 3, Voglmayr discloses that movement of the one or more of the plurality of vertical support structures 16a-16d is configured to be independently controllable (Voglmayr, paragraph [0072]).
With respect to claim 4, Voglmayr discloses that an angle of the frame is configured to be adjusted via at least partially retracting, via the one or more motor units, one or more of the plurality of the vertical support structures 16a-16d coupled to one or more of the plurality of beams at a proximal end of the frame (“Alternatively, the logic/circuitry may be configured to enable the two front extendible vertical members to be raised with one activation and the two rear extendible vertical members to be raised with a second activation,” Voglmayr, paragraph [0072]), further wherein one or more of the plurality of vertical support structures 16a-16d coupled to one or more of the plurality of beams at a distal end of the frame and parallel to the one or more of the plurality of beams 26 at the proximal end of the frame remain stationary during the at least partial retraction of the vertical support structure coupled to the one or more of the plurality of beams 26 at the proximal end of the frame (Voglmayr, paragraph [0072]).
With respect to claim 13, Voglmayr discloses a control system configured to receive commands from a user interface (“control panel,” Voglmayr, paragraph [0074] and a controller of the control system (“suitable logic and circuitry,” Voglmayr, paragraph [0072]) configured to actuate one or more of the motor units to extend and retract the plurality of vertical support structures 16a-16d (Voglmayr, paragraph [0072]).
With respect to claim 14, Voglmayr discloses that the one or more motor units are grouped for actuation (“Suitable logic and circuitry may be provided to extend/retract the extendible vertical members independently and/or simultaneously,” Voglmayr, paragraph [0072]).
With respect to claim 17, the sleeves disclosed by Voglmayr would have the effect of stabilizing the plurality of vertical support structures when the plurality of vertical support structures are extended and protecting the plurality of vertical support structures when the plurality of vertical support structures are retracted.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hornick (US 2003/0127875).
With respect to claim 1, Hornick discloses an integrated bed optimization system, comprising:
an adjustable frame 12a/12b/14a/14b comprising a plurality of beams 12a/12b; and
a plurality of vertical support structures 14a/14b coupled to the frame and configured to adjust one or more of a height and angle of the frame (as shown in Figs. 2-3 of Hornick).
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Calvert (US 8,690,219).
With respect to claim 1, Calvert discloses an integrated bed optimization system, comprising:
an adjustable frame 145/140/141 comprising a plurality of beams 140/140; and
a plurality of vertical support structures (upper cylinders telescoping extension poles 145) coupled to the frame and configured to adjust one or more of a height and angle of the frame (Calvert, col. 3 lines 63-67 and col. 4, lines 1-3).
With respect to claim 2, Calvert discloses one or more support sleeves (lower cylinder of telescoping extension poles 145) configured to house the plurality of vertical support structures (as can be determined from Figs. 1-2 and col. 4, lines 36-44 of Calvert), and
one or more motor units 805 configured to adjust the height of the frame via extending and retracting the plurality of vertical support structures coupled to the frame in and out of the one or more support sleeves (Calvert, col. 5, lines 51-67; Fig. 8).
Claims 1 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Semotuk (US 2008/0164721).
With respect to claim 1, Semotuk discloses an integrated bed optimization system, comprising:
an adjustable frame 20 comprising a plurality of beams 51; and
a plurality of vertical support structures 53 coupled to the frame and configured to adjust one or more of a height and angle of the frame (as shown in Figs. 1, 2, and 3B of Semotuk).
With respect to claim 18, Semotuk discloses an upper structure 10 coupled to the frame, wherein the upper structure comprises an A-frame structure with longitudinal bars (as shown in Fig. 3B of Semotuk, the bottom lip structures of upper structure 10 can be considered bars).
With respect to claim 19, Semotuk discloses that the upper structure 10 comprises one of: a camper shell (Semotuk, paragraph [0036]) and a side skirt or a tonneau cover.
Claims 1 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sullivan (US 2019/0359041).
With respect to claim 1, Sullivan discloses an integrated bed optimization system, comprising:
an adjustable frame 100 comprising a plurality of beams 112/118; and
a plurality of vertical support structures 190 coupled to the frame and configured to adjust one or more of a height and angle of the frame (as shown in Fig. 9 of Sullivan).
With respect to claim 20, Sullivan discloses crossbars 60 across the frame 100 (as shown in Fig. 4B of Sullivan), wherein the crossbars are configured to attach to the plurality of beams 112/118 and are capable of securing objects placed on the frame.
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.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voglmayr (US 7,898,200), as applied to claims 2 and 4 above, and further in view of Bell et al. (US 2020/0017239).
With respect to claim 5, Voglmayr discloses the claimed system except that he is silent on the inclusion of amounting plate and hinges configured to tilt the frame forwards and backwards up to 20 degrees. However, Bell et al. teach a similar lifting system including a connection point 88 connecting a vertical support structure 23 to the plurality of beams at the proximal end of the frame, wherein the connection point comprises hinges 92 on a mounting plate 48, wherein the hinges 92 are configured to tilt the mounting plate and frame forwards and backwards up to 20 degrees (Bell et al., paragraph [0042]).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Bell et al. with the system disclosed by Voglmayr for the advantage of providing a more secure support for equipment or other structures that are not parallel to the vehicle.
With respect to claim 6, Voglmayr disclose the claimed system except that he is silent on the inclusion of a mounting plate configured to tilt the frame forwards and backwards up to 20 degrees. However, Bell et al. teach a similar system including a connection point 88 connecting a vertical support structure 23 located at a side end of the frame and one or more of the plurality of beams located at a side end of the frame (in the combination the connection point 88 as taught by Bell eta l. would be located at a side end of the frame and one or more of the plurality of beams located at a side end of the frame), wherein the connection point 88 comprises a mounting plate 48 configured to tilt the frame forwards and backwards up to 20 degrees(Bell et al., paragraph [0042]).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Bell et al. with the system disclosed by Voglmayr for the advantage of providing a more secure support for equipment or other structures that are not parallel to the vehicle.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hornick (US 2003/0127875), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Murphy (US 2010/0215456).
With respect to claim 8, Hornick discloses the claimed system except for each of the plurality of beams comprising one or mounting slots on one or more sides of the beam. However, Murphy teaches a similar system including a plurality of beams 20/20 each of the plurality of beams 20/20 comprising one or mounting slots 30 on one or more sides of the beam 20/20 configured to receive an attachment 50 (as shown in Figs. 4-5 of Murphy ).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Murphy with the system disclosed by Hornick for the advantage of providing secure tie down points along the beams of the system.
With respect to claim 9, Murphy teaches a fastening mechanism 52 configured to couple the attachment 50 to the one or more mounting slots 20/20 (as shown in Fig. 2 of Murphy).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hornick (US 2003/0127875) in view of Murphy (US 2010/0215456), as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Schroeder et al. (US 2017/0209318).
With respect to claim 10, Hornick in view of Murphy discloses the claimed system except for the one or more holes are located within or adjacent to an exterior of the one or more mounting slots. However, Schroeder et al. teach a similar slot system including a beam 10 with one or more slots 20 configured to receive an attachment 50 (Schroeder et al., paragraph [0159]; Figs. 3 and 29). Schroeder further teaches one or more holes 905 configured to receive the attachments 50, wherein the one or more holes 905 are located within or adjacent to an exterior of the one or more mounting slots 20 (as shown in Fig. 29 of Schroeder et al.).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Schroeder et al. with the system disclosed by Hornick in view of Murphy for the advantage of locking the attachment in a specified position along the slot in the beam.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calvert (US 8,690,219), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Sterling (US 2016/0288693).
With respect to claim 15, Calvert discloses the claimed system except for the support structures having tracks and slots. However, Sterling teaches a similar system including
support structures having tracks 28 and slots 40 configured to receive fastening mechanisms 46/88 and attachments 44, wherein the support structures are configured to be attached to inner sides of a pickup truck bed (as shown in Fig. 1 of Sterling), wherein the inner sides include a tailgate of the pickup truck bed (the rail is 28 is capable of being located on an inner side of the tailgate of the pickup truck bed).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Sterling with the system disclosed by Calvert for the advantage of providing secure tie down points along the beams of the system.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Semotuk (US 2008/0164721), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shanley (US 2013/0140848).
With respect to claim 21, Semotuk discloses the claimed system except for the extendable drawer structure coupled to the frame. However, Shanley teaches a similar system including a liftable frame 258 with an extendable drawer structure 259 coupled to the frame and configured for additional storage space (as shown in Figs. 29-32 of Shanley).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Shanley with the system disclosed by Semotuk for the advantage of providing additional storage to the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 16 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 11 has been indicated as containing allowable subject matter primarily for the locking pins configured to align into the one or more holes, wherein the locking pins are coupled to 90 degree connectors configured to couple two or more of the plurality of beams, wherein the alignment of the locking pins with the one or more holes is configured to secure the 90 degree connectors and the coupled two or more of the plurality of beams.
Claim 12 has been indicated as containing allowable subject matter primarily for the one or more support sleeves being configured to protrude below a floor of a pickup truck bed supporting the frame, wherein the one or more of the plurality of vertical support structures are retracted into the one or more support sleeves to lower and flush the frame with the floor of the pickup truck bed.
Claim 16 has been indicated as containing allowable subject matter primarily for the electric motors configured to actuate gears to rotate wheels and pinions to engage a rack on one or more of the plurality of vertical support structures, wherein the rack is configured to extend and retract the one or more of the plurality of vertical support structures. Note, this claim is interpreted as requiring the gears, wheels, pinions and rack as part of the positively recited structure in the claim.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J COLILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-2157. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 4:00.
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.
/Daniel J Colilla/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612