Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This is a first office action on the merits for application serial number 18/721,408 filed 6/15/24 as a national stage entry of PCT/ZA2022/050070. This action is in response to the preliminary amendment filed 6/18/24. Claims 1-15 are pending. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/01/24 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
The substitute specification filed 6/18/24 has been entered.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The paragraphs are not numbered consecutively in the clean copy of the substitute specification filed on 6/18/24. They are numbered from [0001-0026] then start over again with [0001-0031];
Paragraph [0005] on page 7 indicates to “(see Figure 3)” for the tent unit 22 where tent unit 22 is not shown in Figure 3. It appears “Figure 3” should read - -Figure 4 - -;
Paragraph [0007] on page 8 cites: “The cover 18 is pivotally connected to the base 16, allowing the cover to move about a first pivot axis 24 (illustrated as a dotted line on Figure 2) between an open position (illustrated in Figure 2) and a closed position (illustrated in Figure 4). In the closed position, the cover closes upon an upper surface of the base 16”.
Figure 4 is not closed position as indicated. Figure 5 shows the closed position.; and
Paragraph [0008] on page 8 indicates:
[0008] The base extension 20 is pivotally connected to the base 16, allowing the base extension to move about a second pivot axis 26 (illustrated as a dotted line on Figure 2) between a first "folded" position in which the base extension overlaps the base (as illustrated in Figure 5) and a second "extended" position in which the base extension
extends from the base in a co-planar array (as illustrated in Figure 2).
Figure 5 fails to show the recited overlap as indicated. It is shown in Figure 6;
Appropriate correction is required.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the honeycomb core of claim 8 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 6, 11, 12 and 15 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 6, “the single rigid plate” lacks antecedent basis. Note claim 6 depends from claim 5 and the single rigid plate is introduced in claim 4.
In claim 11, “each corner element” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 12, “the perimeter mount” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 15, “the first position” and “the second position” each lack antecedent basis. Note the claim depends from claim 13 and the first and second positions are not introduced until claim 14.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 9, 10 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. 2022/0396967 to Dunn et al.
Dunn provides a rooftop tent enclosure which includes a base detachably fixed to a roof of a vehicle [0001, 0010], which includes a first load bearing flat base panel 104 disclosed as an aluminum honeycomb material in [0010, 0043] and a perimeter frame which engages a perimeter of the first base panel (see annotated figure below), a base extension 110 rotatably connected to the base (see paragraph [0010] which recites “In one embodiment, the extension plate is securely and hingedly connected to one end of the base so as to overlap with the base”), a cover 102 rotatably connected to the base (see at least paragraph [0011] which recites “the cover is securely and hingedly affixed to another end of the base”) to open and close on an upper surface of the base, which includes a second load bearing plate or “panel” 120 and a sidewall 122/124 which extends between an upper edge and a lower edge and which engages the second panel along the upper edge.
While Dunn fails to discuss a permitier frame for the base and extension, the figures clearly illustrate a frame. In accordance with MPEP 2125 “Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed”.
With respect to claim 2, at least paragraph [0042] references the extension 110 as a plate which is considered to meet the limitation of “a panel”.
With respect to claims 9-10, see figure 9 which provides four side panels 122/124/134/152 and four corner panels 132/136/144/148.
With respect to claim 13, see tent unit 168.
With respect to claim 14, the base extension 110 moves from a first position in which the base extension overlaps the base 104 as shown in Figs. 20 and 22, to a second position in which the base extension extends from the base to form a single flat-bed deck as shown in Figs. 23-24.
With respect to claim 15, the tent unit moves from a folded configuration when the cover is closed and the base extension is in the first position, to an open configuration when the cover is open and the base extension is in the second position as shown in Fig. 27 and described in paragraph [0057].
PNG
media_image1.png
512
802
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2022/0396967 to Dunn et al. in view of U.S. 2019/0352924 to Currid.
Dunn provides each of the elements of the claims as noted above except:
each of the first, second and third panels include an upper rigid plate and a lower rigid plate and a core sandwiched between the upper and the lower plates [cl.3],
where the core is a structural foam, made of any one of the following: an expanded polypropylene foam, a polyurethane foam and a polyvinylchloride foam [cl.7];
where the core has a honeycomb configuration, made of rigid plastics material [cl.8];
each of the first and third panels include an upper rigid plate and a lower rigid plate and a core sandwiched between the upper and the lower plates and the second panel is composed of a single rigid plate [cl.4]; or
the rigid plates are made of aluminum, fiberglass or carbon fiber [cl.6].
Currid teaches at the time of the effective filing date of the invention that it was known to provide panels of a cartop tent enclosure as sandwich panels having upper and lower plates with a honeycomb core sandwiched there between as shown in Fig. 3. The panels may be formed of aluminum, ABS or other lightweight materials including certain types of plastics, ABS, carbon fiber, steel, etc. [0064].
With respect to claim 7, the examiner takes official notice that sandwich panels where the core is a structural foam, made of any one of the following: an expanded polypropylene foam, a polyurethane foam and a polyvinylchloride foam are old and well known and would have been an obvious material choice based upon Currid’s “or other lightweight materials including certain types of plastic”.
It would have been an obvious choice of design at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed any or all of the first through third panels of Dunn as a sandwich panels with a honeycomb core out aluminum, fiberglass or carbon fiber as taught by Currid and 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, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Selection of the various panel structures/material would have been an obvious choice of design for the inherent material properties such as strength to weight absent any unexpected or unpredictable results.
Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art would have combined the elements at the time of the effective filing date of the invention as claimed by known methods with a reasonable expectation of success with no change to their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art of selecting known structural rigid lightweight panel constructions and materials for their inherent material properties such as strength to weight and/or insulating.
Claims 11-12, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2022/0396967 to Dunn et al. in view of U.S. 2021/0032894 to Park.
Dunn provides each of the elements of the claims as noted above except for specifying the perimeter frame has a modular configuration, comprising four side channels and corner elements connecting a respective pair of side channels [cl.11] and
the perimeter mount has a modular configuration, comprising four side rails and at least two corner pieces, each corner piece connecting a respective pair of side rails [cl.12].
Park teaches that at the time of the effective filing date of the invention it was known to provide the perimeter frame as modular with side channels 220 and corner pieces 232 [Fig.7] and the perimeter mount with rails 126 and corner pieces 132 [fig.6].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention that perimeter frame and mount of the panels 104/110 of Dunn could have includes modular perimeter assemblies as taught by Park and as suggested from the figures of Dunn.
Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art would have combined the elements at the time of the effective filing date of the invention as claimed by known methods with a reasonable expectation of success with no change to their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art of constructing panels 104/110 using known techniques.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Particularly note:
Figures 1C, 2E and 3, as well as paragraphs [0030, 0042, 0043, 0071], of U.S. 2019/0352924 to Currid which teaches a cartop tent enclosure with a cover having a top honeycomb sandwich panel 274 and contoured depending sidewalls 276. The cover hinged to a base having a bottom panel 272 which may be formed of honeycomb and perimeter side walls 278 constructed of ABS, plastic fiberglass or other materials. No rotatably connected base extension is disclosed.
Figure 3 of U.S. 2021/0025190 to Montesalvo et al. teaches a cartop enclosure having a panel 304 with four perimeter rails 308 and four corner pieces 302.
DE 20 2021 105 558 cite 2 of the IDS filed 11/01/24.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT CANFIELD whose telephone number is (571)272-6840. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6, some Saturdays.
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, David Dunn can be reached at 571-272-6670. 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.
ROBERT CANFIELD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3636
/Robert Canfield/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636