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 Remarks
Applicant's remarks filed 1/7/2026 have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. §112 rejections are persuasive and the previous 35 U.S.C. §112 rejections have been removed in the current Office action. Applicant’s remarks with respect to the prior art rejections are not persuasive. Applicant's remarks amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Applicant's amendment in regards to claim dependency and new claim necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Further interpretation has been set forth below in the action.
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.
Claim 20 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 20 recites the broad recitation is smaller than 8 feet long and 5 feet wide to accommodate a long bed pick-up truck, and the claim also recites wherein the sliding truck bed platform is smaller than 6 feet 5 inches long and 5 feet wide to accommodate a standard bed pick-up truck; [and] wherein the sliding truck bed platform is smaller than 5 feet 8 inches long and 5 feet wide to accommodate a short bed pick-up truck which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Moreover, the claim has “a consisting of” transitional phrase reciting three different pick-up truck limitations which could be construed to vary on sizes and types based on manufacturer, model, and year. Further, claim 20 unclearly recites in the last line that “the sliding truck bed platform is pulled out over a tailgate of the pick-up truck.” It is unclear which pick-up truck the limitation is referring to, if the measurements are directed to a long bed, standard bed, or short bed, pick-up truck, rendering the claim vague and indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 1-4 and 7-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Derbes et al. (U.S. 8,840,166 B1) [166] in view of Bauman (U.S. 4,972,030) [030].
Regarding Claim 1, Reference [166] discloses a planar base (10) having a front surface (12) and a back surface (lower surface); and a plurality of handles (21) disposed on the planar base; wherein the sliding truck bed platform is configured to be placed inside a truck bed (22) of a pick-up truck wherein one or more items may be disposed on top of the front surface; and wherein the back surface of the planar base, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the back surface of the planar base includes a coating to reduce friction when the sliding truck bed platform is pulled out from the truck bed of the pick-up truck.
Nevertheless, Reference [030] teaches a coating (high molecular weight polyethylene HMW PE).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the liner of Reference [166] with the polyethylene coating as taught by Reference [030] in order to have desirable properties such as high abrasion resistance, reduced moisture absorption, and reduced coefficient of friction.
It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding Claim 2, the previously made combination of references [166] / [030] and reasoning above discloses wherein the planar base has a generally-rectangular (rectangular, Ref. [166]) shape.
Regarding Claim 3, the previously made combination of references [166] / [030] and reasoning above discloses wherein the front surface of the planar base has a rough texture (textured, Ref. [166]) to prevent the one or more items disposed on top of the front surface from moving while the planar base is slid within and outside of the truck bed.
Regarding Claim 4, the previously made combination of references [166] / [030] and reasoning above discloses wherein the front surface of the planar base includes a surface selected from the group consisting of a corrugated surface, a surface with a plurality of raised protrusions (textured), or a surface with a plurality of grooves.
Regarding Claim 7, the previously made combination of references [166] / [030] and reasoning above discloses wherein the back surface is smooth (smooth) and flat.
Regarding Claim 8, the previously made combination of references [166] / [030] and reasoning above discloses wherein the handles include a first pair of handles disposed on a first side of the planar base (21, 21, bottom of page of Figure 1 of Ref. [166]).
Regarding Claim 9, the previously made combination of references [166] / [030] and reasoning above discloses wherein the handles include a second pair of handles disposed on a second side of the planar base (21, 21, on upper half of 10 of Figure 1 of Ref. [166]).
Regarding Claim 10, the previously made combination of references [166] / [030] and reasoning above discloses wherein the handles are stamped out of the planar base.
In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e handles of a bed platform, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. stamped out. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
Regarding Claim 11, the previously made combination of references [166] / [030] and reasoning above discloses wherein the handles are each integral to the planar base.
Regarding Claim 12, the previously made combination of references [166] / [030] and reasoning above discloses wherein the handles each have a general-elongated oval shape.
Regarding Claim 13, the previously made combination of references [166] / [030] and reasoning above discloses wherein the sliding truck bed platform assists one or more users with unloading one or more items from the truck bed.
It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding Claim 14, the previously made combination of references [166] / [030] and reasoning above discloses the claimed invention, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the sliding truck bed platform is smaller than 8 feet long and 5 feet wide to accommodate a long bed pick-up truck.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have had the liner smaller than 8 feet long and 5 feet wide, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, page 6, paragraph [0036] applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
The Examiner notes that the pick-up truck is not positively recited and is interpreted as intended use. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding Claim 15, the previously made combination of references [166] / [030] and reasoning above discloses the claimed invention, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the sliding truck bed platform is smaller than 6 feet 5 inches long and 5 feet wide to accommodate a standard bed pick-up truck.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have had the liner smaller than 6 feet 5 inches long and 5 feet wide, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, page 6, paragraph [0036] applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
The Examiner notes that the pick-up truck is not positively recited and is interpreted as intended use. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding Claim 16, the previously made combination of references [166] / [030] and reasoning above discloses the claimed invention, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the sliding truck bed platform is smaller than 5 feet 8 inches long and 5 feet wide to accommodate a short bed pick-up truck.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have had the liner smaller than 5 feet 8 inches long and 5 feet wide, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, page 6, paragraph [0036] applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
The Examiner notes that the pick-up truck is not positively recited and is interpreted as intended use. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding Claim 17, the previously made combination of references [166] / [030] and reasoning above discloses wherein the sliding truck bed platform is bendable (flexible characteristic, Ref. [166]).
Regarding Claim 18, the previously made combination of references [166] / [030] and reasoning above discloses the sliding truck bed platform is configured to be removed from the truck bed when the sliding truck bed platform is pulled out over a tailgate of the pick-up truck (may be completely slidably removed, Abstract, Ref. [166]).
It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Claims 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Derbes et al. (U.S. 8,840,166 B1) [166] in view of Bauman (U.S. 4,972,030) [030] and further in view of Pollard (U.S. 11,396,169) [169].
Regarding Claim 6, the previously made combination of references [166] / [030] and reasoning above discloses the claimed invention, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the coating is a Polytetrafluoroethylene coating to facilitate sliding the sliding truck bed platform along on the truck bed.
Nevertheless, Reference [169] teaches a Polytetrafluoroethylene material layer (high Polytetrafluoroethylene).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the coating of the liner of Reference [166] / [030] with a Polytetrafluoroethylene material as taught by Reference [169] in order to have desirable properties of Polytetrafluoroethylene such as abrasion resistance in order to resist abrasion damage and have a material that can withstand high temperatures.
The Examiner notes it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have changed materials of a coating from a Polyethylene to a Polytetrafluoroethylene, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Polytetrafluoroethylene is known to one of ordinary skill in the art as a material that is able to withstand high temperatures. Please note that in the instant application, page 6, paragraph [0032], applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding Claim 20, as best understood, Reference [166] as mapped above in the action discloses a planar base having a front surface and a back surface; and a plurality of handles disposed on the planar base; wherein the sliding truck bed platform is configured to be placed inside a truck bed of a pick-up truck wherein one or more items may be disposed on top of the front surface; wherein the planar base has a generally-rectangular shape; wherein the front surface of the planar base has a rough texture to prevent the one or more items disposed on top of the front surface from moving while the planar base is slid within and outside of the truck bed; wherein the front surface of the planar base includes a surface selected from the group consisting of a corrugated surface, a surface with a plurality of raised protrusions, or a surface with a plurality of grooves; wherein the back surface is smooth and flat; wherein the handles include a first pair of handles disposed on a first side of the planar base; wherein the handles include a second pair of handles disposed on a second side of the planar base; wherein the handles are stamped out of the planar base; wherein the handles are each integral to the planar base; wherein the handles each have a general-elongated oval shape; wherein the sliding truck bed platform assists one or more users with unloading one or more items from the truck bed; wherein the sliding truck bed platform is bendable; and wherein the sliding truck bed platform is configured to be removed from the truck bed when the sliding truck bed platform is pulled out over a tailgate of the pick-up truck, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the back surface of the planar base includes a coating to reduce friction when the sliding truck bed platform is pulled out from the truck bed of the pick-up truck; wherein the coating is a Polytetrafluoroethylene coating to facilitate sliding the sliding truck bed platform along on the truck bed; wherein the sliding truck bed platform is smaller than 8 feet long and 5 feet wide to accommodate a long bed pick-up truck; wherein the sliding truck bed platform is smaller than 6 feet 5 inches long and 5 feet wide to accommodate a standard bed pick-up truck; [and] wherein the sliding truck bed platform is smaller than 5 feet 8 inches long and 5 feet wide to accommodate a short bed pick-up truck.
Nevertheless, Reference [030] teaches a coating (high molecular weight polyethylene HMW PE).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the liner of Reference [166] with the polyethylene coating as taught by Reference [030] in order to have desirable properties such as high abrasion resistance, reduced moisture absorption, and reduced coefficient of friction.
Further, the combination of references [166] / [030] does not explicitly disclose wherein the coating is a Polytetrafluoroethylene coating.
Nevertheless, Reference [169] teaches a Polytetrafluoroethylene material layer (high Polytetrafluoroethylene).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the coating of the liner of Reference [166] / [030] with a Polytetrafluoroethylene material as taught by Reference [169] in order to have desirable properties of Polytetrafluoroethylene such as abrasion resistance in order to resist abrasion damage and have a material that can withstand high temperatures.
Even further, the combination of references [166] / [030] / [169] does not explicitly disclose wherein the sliding truck bed platform is smaller than 5 feet 8 inches long and 5 feet wide.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have had the liner of reference [166] / [030] / [169] smaller than 5 feet 8 inches long and 5 feet wide, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, page 6, paragraph [0036] applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e handles of a bed platform, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. stamped out. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
The Examiner notes that the pick-up truck is not positively recited and is interpreted as intended use. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
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 JASON W SAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6531. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM-5PM.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached on 571-272-8105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677