Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 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.
2. Claims 1-9 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.
The preamble of claim 1 only functionally recites the truck by using the functional language “for carrying cargo on a truck” while the body of claim 1 seems to recite the truck being claimed in combination by using the positive structural recitation “are removably attached to…bed of the truck”. It is not clear if the truck is being claimed in combination or not. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed the truck is not being claimed in combination. If this is correct, the body of the claim should be made functional to match the preamble. If the opposite it true, the preamble should clearly recite the truck in combination.
In claim 8, the scope of “quick-release” is unclear. Applicant does disclose a few examples of quick-release mechanisms in paragraph [0072] of the Specification but the list is not exclusive and mentions “other mechanisms of similar type”. What exactly is considered “quick” or “similar” and what is not?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dost (US 9,321,493 B2) in view of Amos (US 4,639,034 A).
Regarding claim 1, Dost discloses a utility rack for carrying cargo on a truck comprising: an exoskeleton assembly (12 or 56) comprising a first side frame, a second side frame, and at least two crossbars, wherein the first side frame and the second side frame are removably attached to a top surface of a first and second side wall of a bed of the truck, and wherein each of the at least two crossbars connect the first side frame to the second side frame (see Figures); a top panel, a first side panel, a second side panel, a front panel, and a rear panel (see 14 in Figure 1 and 54 in Figure 20); wherein the top panel, first side panel, second side panel, front panel, and rear panel removably attach to the exoskeleton assembly to form a canopy over the bed of the truck; wherein all or a portion of the first side panel, second side panel, front panel, and rear panel may be detached from the exoskeleton while cargo is attached to the exoskeleton (removing the panels would just be reversing the self-assembly steps of attaching the panels, see col. 9 lines 30-32 and lines 40-42, and this could be done when cargo is attached to an inside of the frame not covered by the panels like the outside of the frame is covered as shown in Figure 12 of Dost).
Dost fails to disclose the crossbars adjustably connecting the first and second side frames. Dost does consider custom builds to fit different sized vehicles (see col. 9 lines 53+). Amos teaches that it was already known in the art for crossbars (11) to adjustably connect (at 58) left and right sides (12,13) of a vehicle rack where such telescoping allows the rack to fit a variety of sizes of truck beds (see col. 3 lines 21-22), while a solid one-piece construction is also an option (see col. 3 lines 44-47). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have made the crossbars of Dost adjustable rather than one piece, the motivation being to allow one rack to fit varying truck bed sizes, as taught by Amos.
Regarding claim 7, Dost as modified above would include the utility rack of claim 1 wherein Dost discloses the first and second side frames comprise continuous hoop shapes (once assembled).
6. Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dost (US 9,321,493 B2) in view of Amos (US 4,639,034 A) as applied above, further in view of Diday (US 1,578,408 A).
Regarding claim 2, Dost as modified above would include the utility rack of claim 1 wherein one or more of the first side panel, second side panel, front panel, or rear panel are removably attached to the exoskeleton by a plurality of disconnecting hinge assemblies. Dost does disclose the panels being attached to the exoskeleton with hinges (20 and 87) and while it is not clear if the hinges are of the disconnecting type, Dost discloses that other hinges known in the art may be used (see col. 8 lines 37-40). Diday teaches a hinge (3/4) that allows a panel to be removed when rotated past a certain point (see lines 14-22 and 77-81). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have explored other known hinges, as considered by Dost himself, and to have replaced the hinge of Dost with disconnecting hinges of the type disclosed by Diday, the motivation being to allow a user to easily attach and remove the panels from the exoskeleton as desired.
Regarding claim 3, Dost as modified above would include the utility rack of claim 2 wherein the disconnecting hinge assemblies comprise: a first leaf having a hinge barrel (3,5 of Diday), the first leaf attached to one of the panels or the side frames; a second leaf having a hinge barrel (4,7 of Diday), the second leaf attached to another of the panels; and a hinge pin (8 of Diday) for pivotally engaging the hinge barrels of the first and second leaves; wherein the hinge barrel of the second leaf has a longitudinal gap (see Figures of Diday) configured to allow the hinge pin to escape from the hinge barrel when the second leaf is in an over-rotated position (as taught by Diday).
Regarding claim 4, Dost as modified above would include the utility rack of claim 3 but so far fails to include wherein the first leaf is attached to the top panel and the second leaf is attached to the rear panel. It is clear that all panels of Dost would include a hinge leaf for attachment to a hinge leaf on the exoskeleton. It is not immediately clear whether the panels include the first hinge leaf or the second hinge leaf that includes the gap. A person of ordinary skill in the art at time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed would have realized through their own available knowledge and reasoning that the orientation of the hinge leaves does not matter and would have found it obvious to have provided some or all of the panels with either the first hinge leaf or the second hinge leaf that includes the gap, effectively satisfying the limitation of this claim as currently presented.
Regarding claim 5, Dost as modified above would include the utility rack of claim 3 wherein the first leaf is attached to a side frame and the second leaf is attached to a side panel, as originally taught by Dost.
7. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dost (US 9,321,493 B2) in view of Amos (US 4,639,034 A) as applied above, further in view of Cornelius (US 6,439,646 B1).
Regarding claim 6, Dost as modified above would include the utility rack of claim 1 but so far fails to include wherein the top panel, when attached to the exoskeleton assembly, is disposed under the at least two crossbars such that cargo may be disposed on the at least two crossbars while the top panel is attached to the exoskeleton assembly. Cornelius teaches that it was already known in the art for a top panel (60) to be attached beneath a pair of crossbars (88) such that cargo may be disposed on the crossbars while the top panel is attached to the exoskeleton assembly. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s’ invention was effectively filed to have attached the top panel of the modified Dost rack beneath the crossbars, the motivation being to allow cargo to be disposed on the crossbars while the top panel is attached to the exoskeleton, as taught by Cornelius.
8. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dost (US 9,321,493 B2) in view of Amos (US 4,639,034 A) as applied above, further in view of Singer (US 10,252,679 B2).
Regarding claim 8, Dost as modified above would include the utility rack of claim 1 but so far fails to include wherein the side panels are attached to the side frames by quick release devices. Dost never explicitly discloses how the panels are attached to the frames other than saying they are attached via the hinges and doesn’t mention exactly how the hinges are attached. Dost generally discloses the use of nuts and bolts for ease of self-assembly and also teaches that other types of fasteners can be used (see col. 5 lines 31-33). Singer teaches that it was already known for quick release fasteners to be used in place of other fasteners in the assembly of a truck bed device (see col. 6 line 64 - col. 7 line 6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have attached the panels to the frames using nuts and bolts (which could be considered quick release themselves), as generally taught by Dost, or to have used quick release fasteners, as taught by Singer, as mere design choice and selection between known and suitable fastener types.
9. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dost (US 9,321,493 B2) in view of Amos (US 4,639,034 A) as applied above, further in view of Feather (US 3,688,787 A).
Regarding claim 9, Dost as modified above would include the utility rack of claim 1 but so far fails to include wherein the side panels comprise an outer frame for attachment to the side frames and a door panel pivotally attached to the outer frame. Feather teaches that it was already known for a pivoting panel similar to those of Dost to be provided as an outer frame (45) attached to the rack frame and pivoting door (48) attached to the outer frame. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided one or more of the pivoting panels of Dost, in this case the side panels, as outer frames attached to the side frames and a door panel pivotally attached to the outer frames, as a simple substation of one known pivoting panel design for another, where Feather shows such pivoting panel design was already known to be suitable for such use.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN MATTHEW LARSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8649. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-3pm. 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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at (571)272-4544. 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.
/JUSTIN M LARSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734 8/30/25