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 .
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 12-14 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 12, applicant claims “the cab back assembly movable between a standard bed position and an extended bed position, the cab back assembly including a rear window and a front wall that is below the rear window” but also claims “the front wall assembly moves relative to the rear window when the cab back assembly is moved back-and-forth between the extended bed position and the standard bed position” and “the front wall of the cab back assembly is pivoted to a position where the cab back assembly is in front of the extend floor region” (emphasis added). If the cab back assembly includes the rear window, and it must be in front of the extended floor region, as claimed, it is unclear how this occurs when the front wall is also moved relative to the rear window. The positioning of the cab back assembly including the rear window in front of the extended floor region appears to be consistent with the embodiments of figures 4 and 5. The front wall assembly moving relative to the rear window appears to be consistent with figures 3 and 8-12. The two embodiments shown by these two groups of figures appear to be mutually exclusive.
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 12-14 and 20-21 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 12, applicant claims “the cab back assembly movable between a standard bed position and an extended bed position, the cab back assembly including a rear window and a front wall that is below the rear window” but also claims “the front wall assembly moves relative to the rear window when the cab back assembly is moved back-and-forth between the extended bed position and the standard bed position” and “the front wall of the cab back assembly is pivoted to a position where the cab back assembly is in front of the extend floor region” (emphasis added). If the cab back assembly includes the rear window, and it must be in front of the extended floor region, as claimed, it is unclear how this occurs when the front wall is also moved relative to the rear window. The positioning of the cab back assembly including the rear window in front of the extended floor region appears to be consistent with the embodiments of figures 4 and 5. The front wall assembly moving relative to the rear window appears to be consistent with figures 3 and 8-12. The two embodiments shown by these two groups of figures appear to be mutually exclusive.
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, 8, 9, 15, 18, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawabata et al. (US Patent 8,328,262).
Re claim 1, Kawabata et al. discloses a vehicle assembly, comprising a cab back assembly (10, figure 5) that separates a cargo bed area of a vehicle from a passenger compartment of the vehicle (as shown in figure 5) , the cab back assembly movable between a standard bed position (shown in figure 5) and an extended bed position (shown in figure 9); and a cargo bed floor having an extended floor region (the portion of 51 in front of 10 in figure 5) that extends into the passenger compartment when the cab back assembly is in the standard bed position, the extended floor region aft of the passenger compartment when the cab back assembly is in the extended bed position (as shown in figure 9), wherein a rear row of seats is supported on the extended floor region when the cab back assembly is in the standard bed position (see the annotated figure below), and the rear row of seats is folded with the cab back assembly is in the extended
PNG
media_image1.png
355
534
media_image1.png
Greyscale
bed position (as shown in figure 9).
Re claim 8, the extended floor region extends continuously and uninterruptedly from a standard floor region of the cargo bed floor (as shown by figure 5, 51 is continuous), the extended floor region aft of the passenger compartment when the cab back assembly is in the standard bed position (shown by figure 5).
Re claim 9, the extended floor region of the cargo bed floor extends directly from the standard floor region of the cargo bed floor without a gap between the extended floor region and the standard floor region (as shown by figure 5, 51 is continuous).
Re claim 12, a front wall (10) of the cab back assembly is pivoted to a position where the cab back assembly is in front of the extended floor region (as shown by figures 7-9) when the cab back assembly is in the extended bed position.
Re claim 13, the front wall is vertically oriented when the cab back assembly is in the standard bed position (as shown in figure 5).
Re claim 14, the front wall includes a flip-up panel (55, figure 9) that is configured to provide a front wall when the cab back assembly is in the extended bed position.
Re claim 15, Smith discloses a vehicle cargo bed extending method, comprising separating a passenger compartment of a vehicle from a cargo bed area using a cab back assembly (10) in a standard bed position(as shown in figure 5); wherein a rear row of seats is supported on an extended floor region of a cargo bed floor when the cab back assembly is in the standard bed position (see the annotated figure below), folding the rear row of seats (as shown in figure 9), and moving the cab back assembly from the standard bed position to an extended bed position (shown in figure 9), the cab back assembly positioned aft of the extended floor region (the portion of 51 in front of 10 in figure 5) when the cab back assembly is in standard bed position (figure 5) such that the extended floor region is disposed in the passenger compartment of the vehicle, the extended floor region aft of the passenger compartment when the cab back assembly is in the extended bed position (figure 9).
PNG
media_image1.png
355
534
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 18, the method includes pivoting the cab back assembly back-and-forth between the standard bed position and the extended bed position (as shown by figures 6-9).
Re claim 23, a pivoting a flip- up panel (55, figures 8 and 9) of the cab back assembly upward to provide a front wall (the wall 55 of the device is closer to the front than the rear of the vehicle and is thus a “front wall” as claimed0 of the cargo bed area when the cab back assembly is in the extended bed position.
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 1, 3, 6, 8-10, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0192201) in view of Zhao et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0219569).
Re claim 1, Smith discloses a vehicle assembly, comprising a cab back assembly (28, figure 1) that separates a cargo bed area of a vehicle from a passenger compartment of the vehicle, the cab back assembly movable between a standard bed position (shown in figure 1) and an extended bed position (shown in figure 4); and a cargo bed floor (20) having an extended floor region (the portion of the floor in front of 56 in figure 4) that extends into the passenger compartment when the cab back assembly is in the standard bed position (as shown in figure 1), the extended floor region aft of the passenger compartment when the cab back assembly is in the extended bed position (as shown by figure 4).
Smith does disclose a rear row of seats (170, 172, figure 5, see paragraph 0044) foldable when the cab assembly is in the extended bed position, but the row of seats is not supported on the extended floor region when the cab back assembly is in the standard bed position as the seats are mounted to the cab back 28. Smith does additionally teach rails (26) to which seats are movably attached.
Zhao et al. teaches attaching foldable seats (12, figure 1) to a floor of a region of a vehicle movably along rails (36, figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a vehicle and method, such as that disclosed by Smith above, to have the rear row of seat supported on the extended floor region when the cab back assembly is in the standard bed position, as taught by Zho et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the seating arrangement of the cab to be more flexibly arranged for the convenience of the vehicle passengers and to better accommodate cargo stored inside the vehicle by arranging the seats in a specific manner.
Re claim 3, Smith further discloses the vehicle is an electrified vehicle (see paragraph 0015 which discloses the vehicle can be electric).
Re claim 6, Smith further discloses the cab back assembly slides relative to the extended floor region when moved between the extended bed position and the standard bed position.
Re claim 8, Smith further discloses the extended floor region extends continuously and uninterruptedly from a standard floor region of the cargo bed floor, the extended floor region aft of the passenger compartment when the cab back assembly is in the standard bed position (as shown in figure 5, the floor is continuous).
Re claim 9, Smith further discloses the extended floor region of the cargo bed floor extends directly from the standard floor region of the cargo bed floor without a gap between the extended floor region and the standard floor region (as shown in figure 5, the floor is continuous).
Re claim 10, Smith further discloses the cab back assembly includes a rear window (144, figure 1) of the vehicle, the rear window moving with other portions of the cab back assembly back-and-forth between the extended bed position and the standard bed position (as shown by figures 1 and 4).
Re claim 15, Smith discloses a vehicle cargo bed extending method, comprising separating a passenger compartment of a vehicle from a cargo bed area using a cab back assembly (28, figure 1) in a standard bed position (shown in figure 2); and moving the cab back assembly from the standard bed position to an extended bed position (shown in figure 4), the cab back assembly positioned aft of an extended floor region of a cargo bed floor (the portion of the floor in front of 56 in figure 4) when the cab back assembly is in standard bed position such that the extended floor region is disposed in the passenger compartment of the vehicle, the extended floor region aft of the passenger compartment when the cab back assembly is in the extended bed position (as shown in figure 4).
Smith does disclose a rear row of seats (170, 172, figure 5, see paragraph 0044) foldable when the cab assembly is in the extended bed position, but the row of seats is not supported on the extended floor region when the cab back assembly is in the standard bed position as the seats are mounted to the cab back 28. Smith does additionally teach rails (26) to which seats are movably attached.
Zhao et al. teaches attaching foldable seats (12, figure 1) to a floor of a region of a vehicle movably along rails (36, figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a vehicle and method, such as that disclosed by Smith above, to have the rear row of seat supported on the extended floor region when the cab back assembly is in the standard bed position, as taught by Zho et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the seating arrangement of the cab to be more flexibly arranged for the convenience of the vehicle passengers and to better accommodate cargo stored inside the vehicle by arranging the seats in a specific manner.
Re claim 16, Smith further discloses the method includes sliding the cab back assembly back-and-forth between the standard bed position and the extended bed position (as shown by figures 2 and 4).
Re claim 17, Smith further discloses the method includes sliding a rear window (144, figure 1) of the cab back assembly together with other portions of the cab back assembly back-and-forth between the standard bed position and the extended bed position (as shown by figures 1 and 4) .
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0192201) in view of Zhao et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0219569), as applied to claims 1, 3, 6, 8-10, and 15-17 above, and further in view of Salter et al. (US Patent 11,565,645).
Smith and Zhao et al. disclose all the limitations of the claim, as applied above, except for the vehicle being a unibody vehicle having a unibody configuration.
Salter et al. teaches a vehicle being a unibody vehicle having a unibody configuration (see column 1, lines 29 and 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a vehicle, such as that disclosed by Smith in view of Zhao et al. above, to be a unibody vehicle having a unibody configuration, as taught by Salter et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order construct the vehicle in a manner that results in less weight and greater fuel economy.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0192201) in view of Zhao et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0219569), as applied to claims 1, 3, 6, 8-10, and 15-17 above, and further in view of Hunt (US Patent 6,260,916).
Re claim 11, Smith and Zhao et al. discloses some of the limitations of claim 11, as applied to claims 1, 3, 6, 8-10, and 15-17 above, and Smith additionally discloses the cab back assembly including a rear window (144, figure 1) and a front wall (the portion of 28 below 144 in figure 1) that is below the rear window.
Smith and Zhao et al. do not disclose the front wall moving relative to the rear window when the cab back assembly is moved back-and-forth between the extended bed position and the standard bed position.
Hunt teaches a front wall (36 figure 5) moving relative to a rear window (38) when a cab back assembly is moved back-and-forth between an extended bed position (in figure 5) and a standard bed position (figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify a vehicle assembly, such as that disclosed by Smith in view of Zhoa et al. above, to have the front wall move relative to the rear window, with the window stationary and thus only the lower half of the rear of the vehicle without the window being movable, when the cab back assembly is moved back-and-forth between the extended bed position and the standard bed position, as taught by Hunt, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to simplify the cab back assembly when the vehicle is only intended to carry long but low loads such as lumber.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with regard to the rejections of claims 1, 3, 6, 8-10, and 15-17 as being anticipated by Smith alone are moot as the claims are rejected on new grounds under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0192201) in view of Zhao et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0219569)
With regard to claims 1, 8, 9, 15, 18, and 23 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawabata et al. (US Patent 8,328,262), applicant argues the rear seat 22 of Kawabat is not supported on the cargo bed floor. The examiner acknowledges a typo that resulted in the cargo bed floor of Kawabata being misidentified as “21 in figure 5” instead of the correct designation of “51 in figure 5” as 21 does not even appear in figure 5. Also, the rejection did identify “51” as the cargo floor as well. The rejection has been clarified above. Also, the annotated figure is provided below to show how the rear seat is supported on the cargo bed floor in contradiction to applicant’s assertions.
PNG
media_image1.png
355
534
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to the rejection of claim 11 as being obvious over the combination of Smith (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0192201) in view of Hunt (US Patent 6,260,916), applicant argues that combination fails to disclose the front wall moving relative to the rear window when the cab back assembly is moved back-and-forth between the extended and the standard bed position. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner has identified in the Hunt reference the structure as the front wall movable relative to the rear when window. Applicant seems to be arguing that because structure 18 of Hunt is stationary, the movable portion 36 cannot be considered a front wall. It is unclear why this would be the case.
Applicant additionally argues that the combination is improper because it would change the primary operation of the device. The examiner respectfully disagrees. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize from the teachings of Hunt that it would be desirable to only allow the bottom of the cab structure below the window to move. Thus, modifying the device of Smith to only allow the bottom portion of the assembly 28 to move while leaving the window stationary would not require substantial redesign. The prior art of record shows numerous examples where a movable panel is provided below a stationary panel including a window of a cab.
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 S Morrow whose telephone number is (571)272-6663. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m..
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at (571) 272-5109. 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 MORROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
September 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights