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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pp. 7-5 of the remarks the applicant argues that Ashcraft does not provide for “an exterior including a skirt portion that extends downwardly relative to a floor of the recreational vehicle…” as required by the amended claims. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated by the applicant “[a]s would be commonly understood by a person of skill in the art, a recreational vehicle includes a frame, where a floor of the vehicle is provided on top of the. The frame also is utilized as a support for the drive train, connecting to the tires of the vehicle. This configuration leaves an open space below the floor, showing the frame and mechanical components associated with the drive train. A skirt is used to cover this space from view, depending downwardly relative to the floor” [see pp 7-8 of the remarks]. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Using the applicant’s analysis as a starting point the frame, and therefore the floor, must be above the drivetrain, with the suspension and axle centerline being below the frame. Since the skirt extends to the axle centerline it must therefore extend below the frame and by extension below the floor. For this reason, the rejection is maintained.
The applicant’s amendments to claim 1 overcome the 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) rejection presented in the Non-Final rejection dated 03/19/2026, therefore the rejection is withdrawn.
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) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ashcraft et. al (US 5,586,546).
With respect to claim 16 Ashcraft discloses a recreational vehicle [reference character 12] comprising: a frame [inherent to a vehicle]; an exterior including a skirt portion [see annotated Fig. below] that extends downwardly relative to a floor of the recreational1 vehicle and is spaced from the frame by a space; and an assembly [reference characters 10 and 13] mounted to the frame2 at least partially within the space between the frame the skirt portion, the assembly comprising: a fixture comprising a body and a working surface, the fixture pivotably coupled relative to the recreational vehicle to be pivotable between a vertically-oriented storage position [see Fig. 5] in the space and a horizontally-oriented use position [see Fig. 3] disposed at least partially outside of the space and extending away from the exterior of the recreational vehicle; a support [reference character 42] movable relative to the recreational vehicle to be moved to a support position supporting the fixture in the use position.
PNG
media_image1.png
350
403
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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) 17, 19 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashcraft et. al (US 5,586,546) in view of Skelton (US 6,263,867 B1).
With respect to claim 17 Ashcraft discloses a method comprising: pivoting a fixture [references character 10] from a vertically-oriented storage position [see Fig. 5] in a space within an exterior perimeter of a recreational vehicle to a horizontally-oriented use position [reference character 3] disposed at least partially outside of the space and extending away from the exterior perimeter of the recreational vehicle; and coupling a support [reference character 40] with the fixture to hold the fixture in the use position.
Ashcraft does not disclose that after pivoting the fixture to the use position, sliding the fixture outward from the use position to an extended use position using a sliding coupling.
Skelton discloses a fixture [reference character 12] that is pivoted from a storage position [see Fig. 4] to a use position [see Fig.1]. After pivoting to the use position the fixture is slid outwardly [see Fig. 1] to an extended use position using a sliding coupling [see column 3 lines 28-42].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Ashcraft by including the sliding coupling taught by Skelton, in order to allow the heat source to be translated away from the side of the RV, to protect the RV siding from heat, smoke, and grease damage.
With respect to claim 19 Ashcraft discloses pivoting the support to a support position [see Figs. 3-4]; and securing the support to a frame [reference character 52] having the fixture mounted thereto to hold the support in the support position.
With respect to claim 21 Ashcraft discloses securing the fixture in the extended use position [the end of the slot 46 stops the translation of pin 42, securing the fixture in the horizontal position].
With respect to claim 22 Ashcraft discloses that the fixture comprises a cooking appliance [a stove], and further comprising connecting a gas supply line [reference character 22] to a gas intake connector [reference character 28] of the cooking appliance.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sussman (US 1,456,474) in view of Skelton (US 6,263,867 B1).
With respect to claim 17 Sussman discloses a method comprising: pivoting a fixture [reference character A in Fig. 3] from a vertically-oriented storage position [reference character 4] in a space within an exterior perimeter of a recreational vehicle3 [Sussman discloses that the fixture is in a space within an exterior perimeter of a wall, pp. 1 lines 60-67] to a horizontally-oriented use position [Figs. 1 and 3] disposed at least partially outside of the space and extending away from the exterior perimeter of the wall; and coupling a support [reference character 29] with the fixture to hold the fixture in the use position.
Sussman does not disclose that after pivoting the fixture to the use position, sliding the fixture outward from the use position to an extended use position using a sliding coupling.
Skelton discloses a fixture [reference character 12] that is pivoted from a storage position [see Fig. 4] to a use position [see Fig.1]. After pivoting to the use position the fixture is slid outwardly [see Fig. 1] to an extended use position using a sliding coupling [see column 3 lines 28-42].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Sussman by including the sliding coupling taught by Skelton, in order to allow the heat source to be translated away from the side of the RV, to protect the RV siding from heat, smoke, and grease damage.
With respect to claim 18 Sussman discloses that pivoting the fixture from the storage position to the use position comprises pivoting the fixture about a pivot [see reference character 27 in Fig. 3] disposed above the fixture in the storage position [see Fig. 4].
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashcraft et. al (US 5,586,546) in view of Skelton (US 6,263,867 B1) and further in view of Parker et. al (US 11,912,191 B2).
With respect to claim 23 Ashcraft does not disclose that the fixture comprises a sink, and further comprising connecting a water supply line to a water intake connector of the sink.
Parker discloses a deployable kitchen that comprises a sink [reference character 561], and further comprising connecting a water supply line to a water intake connector of the sink [see annotated Fig. below].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the fixture taught by Ashcraft by including a sink, as taught by Parker, in order to allow for washing, boiling, and general hygiene whilst cooking.
PNG
media_image2.png
549
754
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 and 14-15 are allowed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIVEK K SHIRSAT whose telephone number is (571)272-3722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:20AM.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at 571-272-9059. 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.
/VIVEK K SHIRSAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
1 See response to arguments.
2 The assembly in Ashcraft would be mounted to the frame at least via being mounted to the vehicle at large, the frame of a vehicle being internal to the skirt, the assembly would be “mounted to the frame at least partially within the space between the frame the skirt portion”.
3 Sussman does not disclose a recreational vehicle, however, it has been held that to be entitled to weight in method claims, the recited-structure limitations therein must affect the method in a manipulative sense, and not to amount to the mere claiming of a use of a particular structure. Ex parte Pfeiffer, 1962 C.D. 408 (1961). In this case the recreational vehicle is claimed as intended use and is therefore not given patentable weight in the claims.
Prosecution Insights