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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 7/22/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Figs. 3 and 17 show the identical handle. This is not found persuasive because as there is significantly more detail in Fig. 17. Moreover, applicant’s arguments as to claim 34 are also not found to be persuasive as there is significantly more details in the claim 34 that would require a serious search and/or examination burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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, 3, 10, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kobylski et al. (US 2005/0212317).
Regarding claim 1, Kobylski discloses a cargo support comprising: a tray (100) that has a top face, a bottom face, first and second sides that extend laterally, and third and fourth sides that extend longitudinally; a first tray rail (240) that is coupled directly or indirectly to the bottom face of the tray; a second tray rail (other side, 240) that is coupled directly or indirectly to the bottom face of the tray and that extends longitudinally and parallel to the first tray rail; and a base frame (200) that includes a first base rail (260) and a second base rail (other side, 260) that extend longitudinally and parallel to each other and that each has a first end and a second end; wherein: the base frame including bores (260) via which the base frame is fastenable to a flatbed floor of a vehicle; the first and second tray rails are slidable relative to the first and second base rails, respectively, so that the tray is longitudinally slidable relative to the base frame: in an expansion direction from a retracted state of the cargo support to one or more expanded states of the cargo support in which the first side of the tray shifts towards the second ends of the first and second base rails and the second side of the tray shifts away from the second ends of the first and second base rails; and in a retraction direction from the one or more expanded states to the retracted state in which the first side of the tray shifts towards the first ends of the first and second base rails and the second side of the tray shifts towards the second ends of the first and second base rails; and the tray has a cutout (Fig. 7, base of 120; or base of 140) in a region of the tray that is at the second side of the tray for a handle (120 or 140) that is pullable for initiating a sliding of the tray in the expansion direction. See Figs. 1-7.
Regarding claim 3, the handle being fastened to the tray at a perimeter of the cutout. See Fig. 7.
Regarding claim 10, the handle (140) includes a housing (120) and a latch control (at 310), at least a part of the latch control being slidable in the expansion and retraction directions within the housing and relative to the housing and the tray.
Regarding claim 12, when the tray is any of at least a subset of positions relative to the base frame, the latch control (I) when shifted relative to the housing in the expansion direction, transitions the cargo support from (a) a locked state in which the longitudinal sliding of the tray relative to the base frame in the expansion and retraction directions is prevented into (b) an unlocked state in which the tray is slidable relative to the base frame in the expansion and retraction directions, and (II) when shifted relative to the housing in the retraction direction, transitions the cargo support from the unlocked state into the locked state. See [0035]-[0036].
Regarding claim 13, along an entire length of at least a portion of a surface of the latch control that faces towards the first side of the tray, the surface of the latch control has a semicircular cross-section. See Fig. 7.
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 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobylski as applied above.
Regarding claim 2, discloses the claimed invention except for the handle as claimed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the handle be an integral part of the tray formed by the cutout, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1983). Further, it has been held that the term “integral” is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as fastening and welding. In re Hotte, 177 USPQ 326, 328 (CCPA 1973).
Regarding claim 13, in the case that Kobylski does not disclose the shape as claimed, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the surface of the latch control have a semicircular cross-section since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. See Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEREK J BATTISTI whose telephone number is (571)270-5709. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm M-F.
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.
/DEREK J BATTISTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights