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 .
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.
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 it uses the prohibited term “disclosed”. 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).
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) 1 and 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rasmussen (US 2018/0141478).
Regarding Claim 1, Rasmussen discloses a guide rail 618 having a lengthwise direction (Fig. 82), the guide rail being structured to be coupled to a structure in a vertical orientation; a carriage 620 (Fig. 90) coupled to the guide rail, the carriage being movable along the guide rail in the lengthwise direction; and a mounting bracket 840 coupled to the carriage; wherein the mounting bracket is movable relative to the carriage in the lengthwise direction (movable about the selection of holes 862 in the carriage 620).
Regarding Claim 8, Rasmussen discloses a guide rail 618 having a lengthwise direction (Fig. 82), the guide rail being structured to be coupled to a vehicle in a vertical orientation; a carriage 620 (Fig. 90) coupled to the guide rail, the carriage being movable along the guide rail in the lengthwise direction; an electric motor 36 (Fig. 6) coupled to the guide rail at the top of the guide rail, the electric motor being configured to power movement of the carriage along the guide rail; a mounting bracket 840 structured to couple a vehicle accessory to the carriage; the mounting bracket including a mounting surface 854 (Fig. 90) to which the vehicle accessory can be fastened; wherein the mounting surface is offset relative to the carriage and the electric motor (Fig. 90).
Regarding Claim 9, Rasmussen discloses first and second guide rails opposite each other in the vehicle and facing each other (Fig. 1), where the electric motor 36 powers both sides of the rail system.
Regarding Claim 10, the vehicle of Rasmussen is an RV.
Regarding Claims 11 and 12, the accessories may include a cooktop 1584 and countertop 1566.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 8, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johnson (US 10,703,250).
Regarding Claims 1 and 2, Johnson discloses a guide rail 630 a-d (Fig. 2) having a lengthwise direction, the guide rail being structured to be coupled to a structure in a vertical orientation (Fig. 2); a carriage 1920 (Fig. 15) coupled to the guide rail, the carriage being movable along the guide rail in the lengthwise direction; and a mounting bracket 1944 (Fig. 17) coupled to the carriage; wherein the mounting bracket is movable relative to the carriage in the lengthwise direction (movable about the slots to attach/detach from the carriage).
Regarding Claim 4, the carriage 1920 includes the slot 1945.
Regarding Claim 8, Johnson discloses a guide rail 630 a-d having a lengthwise direction (Fig. 2), the guide rail being structured to be coupled to a vehicle in a vertical orientation; a carriage 1920 (Fig. 15) coupled to the guide rail, the carriage being movable along the guide rail in the lengthwise direction; an electric motor 636 (Fig. 3) coupled to the guide rail at the top of the guide rail, the electric motor being configured to power movement of the carriage along the guide rail; a mounting bracket 1944 structured to couple a vehicle accessory to the carriage; the mounting bracket including a mounting surface 1942 (Fig. 11) to which the vehicle accessory can be fastened; wherein the mounting surface is offset relative to the carriage and the electric motor (Fig. 11).
Regarding Claims 13 and 14, the mounting bracket 1944 is coupled to the carriage 1920 with tabs 1943 in slots 1945 located on the carriage.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 3, Johnson discloses the use of a slot located on the carriage 1920 with tabs 1943 located on the bracket 1944. Whether or not the slots are on the carriage or the bracket, the inventions would operate exactly the same with a known outcome to one having ordinary skill in the art as the function of the parts is unchanged regardless of location when mated together.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasmussen (US 2018/0141478) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Devoy (FR 2 668 348; applicant cited).
Regarding Claim 5, Rasmussen discloses that the mounting bracket 840 is attached to the carriage 620 via a set of holes to adjust it, but does not disclose using a slot structure to allow adjustment. Devoy discloses a bed system with a bracket 5 attached to a carriage pole 1, wherein the bracket 5 includes a slot structure 11 to allow for the adjustment of the bracket to the carriage. Before the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the slotted brackets, as taught by Devoy, on the structure of Rasmussen as a simple and easier way to adjust the height of the bracket to the carriage as the slots allow for loosening the bolts and moving the bracket as opposed to removing and re-orienting the fasteners each time.
Regarding Claims 6 and 7, the mounting bracket of Devoy 5 includes a slot 11 to receive a shoulder bolt 12 to allow movement of the bracket via the slot.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: applicant’s use of a guide rail structure and a flexible support line as the only support for a hanging bed, wherein the flexible support line is structured to extend upward from a lower anchor point in the vehicle to one side of the bed, across the bed to an opposite side of the bed, and upward from the opposite side of the bed to an upper anchor point in the vehicle; wherein the flexible support line is structured to slide across the bed and hold the bed in an at least approximately horizontal orientation as the bed moves between the lowered position and the raised position, is novel.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art relates to RV beds, their lift systems and the accessories associated therewith.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON S DANIELS whose telephone number is (571)270-1167. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/JASON S DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612