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 .
Drawings
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
The drawings are objected to because 2 of the reference numbers in the drawings are not
matched up properly with the reference numbers in the specification. In Figure 8A, element 415 is
shown, but the specification on page 9 says the basket is 416 and is shown in Figure 8A. In Figure 8B,
element 416 is shown, but the specification on page 9 says the rack is 417 and is shown in Figure 8B.
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.
These drawing objections were first applied in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 6/04/2026, but were not addressed properly in the applicant’s response Amendments filed 8/27/2026.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: as identified above in the
objections to the drawings, 2 of the reference numbers in the drawings are not matched up properly
with the reference numbers in the specification. In Figure 8A, element 415 is shown, but the
specification on page 9 says the basket is 416 and is shown in Figure 8A. In Figure 8B, element 416 is
shown, but the specification on page 9 says the rack is 417 and is shown in Figure 8B. Appropriate
correction is required.
These specification objections were first applied in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 6/04/2026, but were not addressed properly in the applicant’s response Amendments filed 8/27/2026.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: typo. In Paragraph [0032] of the published instant specification, “bolds” should be replaced with “bolts”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: "the" should be placed in between "of vehicle" in Ln. 4 of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: "the" should be placed in between "of vehicle" in Ln. . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: "the" should be placed in between "of vehicle" in Ln. . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. As such, the claim limitation “engagement means configured to engage a plurality of holes disposed in side walls of the truck shell” in claim 20 invokes 112(f), and has support for the structure provided in Paragraph [0032] of the instant specification.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “side wall means”, “front frame means”, “retractable rooftop covering means”, “forward mounted housing means” in claims 14-19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claims 1-19, 24, and 27 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.
Claims 1-19, and 27 are rejected for containing the limitation “a rail to which a rooftop covering of the upper opening is slidably engaged” in independent claims 1, 7, 9, 14, and 19, which is not consistent with the description of the invention in the specification or drawings, as the “rail” is not a clearly pointed out element. Thus, the claim language is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 5 is rejected for citing 2 separate embodiments that appear to be mutually exclusive. Claim 5 depends on claim 1 which recites that the “rooftop covering of the upper opening is slidably engaged”, but in claim 5 it is directed to the “rooftop covering is a clam shell cover”. This has been concluded according to the Drawings (especially Fig. 6 compared to the other Figures), and with the given claim limitations. Thus, the claim language of claim 5 is unclear and indefinite. Further, claim 5 cannot be examined on the merits as there is no clear understanding of what embodiment is to be the intended claimed structure.
Claim 9 recites the limitations "the" in Ln. 8-9 of the claim. The claim recites “a pair of side walls” and “”the bed of the vehicle”, but does not recite the limitations listed above previously. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the plurality of holes" in Ln. 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 is also rejected for the limitation “plurality of holes of the side walls are further configured” in Ln. 1-2 of the claim. Since this is the first reference to a “plurality of holes”, the phrase “further configured” would not make sense. Thus, the claim of language is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the plurality of holes" in Ln. 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 is also rejected for the limitation “plurality of holes of the side wall means are further configured” in Ln. 1-2 of the claim. Since this is the first reference to a “plurality of holes”, the phrase “further configured” would not make sense. Thus, the claim of language is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the bed of vehicle" in Ln. . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 24 is rejected for indefinite and unclear scope. The claim preamble references claim 24, which is the same claim. For purposes of examination, it will be presumed that it is intended to depend on claim 20.
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 1-19, and 27 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.
Claims 1-19 for containing the limitation “a rail to which a rooftop covering of the upper opening is slidably engaged” in independent claims 1, 7, 9, 14, and 19, which does not have support in the specification, as the “rail” is not a clearly pointed out element. Thus, there is no written description support for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 5 is further 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 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. The disclosure does not
disclose the details of how the clam shell cover fits within the claimed structure, especially when
considering the provided Figure 6 which shows the clam shell cover on a different structure than is
claimed. This rejection was originally applied in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 6/4/2026, and was not properly addressed in the applicant’s Amendments filed 8/27/2026. As noted above, claim 5 cannot be examined on the merits as there is no clear understanding of what embodiment is to be the intended claimed structure.
Claim 6 is further 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 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. The claimed structure
with the plurality of holes in the sidewall configured for mounting accessories, does not match with the
structure from the drawings provided (Figures 8A and 8B) and in the references to those figures in the
specification. The drawings show the cargo basket and the storage rack on the top of the truck shell, but
the earlier Figure 4C shows the plurality of holes on the sidewall inside the vehicle. The specification
does not further elaborate on these elements with how they are shown in said figures. Thus, there is no
written description support for the claim language. This rejection was originally applied in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 6/4/2026, and was not properly addressed in the applicant’s Amendments filed 8/27/2026.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-10, 12, 14-15, 17, 19, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sanseviero (US Patent 6767043 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Sanseviero discloses
Equipment (cover assembly 10, Fig. 1) for a transportation vehicle, the equipment comprising:
a pair of opposing side walls (frame 22, Fig. 1; the frame has a side wall on each opposing side of the truck bed), each side wall (frame 22, Fig. 1) being configured to be secured to a wall of a bed of a vehicle (bed assembly 70, Fig. 1; bed assembly has walls which secure to the frame 22 as described in Col. 3, Ln. 35-37) so as to extend above the respective wall of the bed of vehicle (as can be seen in Fig. 10);
a front frame member (wall 25, Fig. 1) adjoining each of the pair of opposing side walls (Col. 3, Ln. 47-49);
a rear door section (door assembly 30, Fig. 1), opposing the front frame member (wall 25, Fig. 1) and located adjacent to the pair of opposing side walls (frame 22, Fig. 1) at an end of each of the pair of opposing side walls opposite the front frame member such that the pair of opposing side walls, front frame member and rear door section constitute a vehicle storage compartment (as can be seen in Figs. 1, and 10-11);
and an upper opening of the vehicle storage compartment being formed between the pair of opposing side walls, the front frame member, and the rear door sections (as can be seen in Figs. 11-12),
wherein each of the pair of side walls (frame 22, Fig. 1) comprises a rail (track 26, Fig. 8a) to which a rooftop covering (shutter assembly 40, Fig. 1) of the upper opening is slidably engaged (Col. 3, Ln. 37-39 and Col. 4, Ln. 41-45; as can be seen in Figs. 8a and 12).
Regarding claim 2, Sanseviero discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
wherein each of the pair of opposing side walls (frame 22, Fig. 1) are configured to slidably engage with the rooftop covering (shutter assembly 40, Fig. 1) such that the rooftop covering is retractable, or otherwise removable (Col. 3, Ln. 37-39, 62-66 and Col. 4, Ln. 41-45; as can be seen in Figs. 8a and 12).
Regarding claim 3, Sanseviero discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
wherein the rooftop covering is a removable rooftop covering that comprises at least one removable panel (Col. 4, Ln. 36-40 discloses another embodiment of the invention where the shutter assembly 40 is replaced with a plurality of covers/panels that are removable).
Regarding claim 4, Sanseviero discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
Wherein the rooftop covering (shutter assembly 40, Fig. 1) is a retractable rooftop covering (Col. 4, Ln. 41-45).
Regarding claim 7, Sanseviero discloses
a vehicle storage compartment system (cover assembly 10, Fig. 1) comprising:
a vehicle bed (bed assembly 70, Fig. 1);
and a shell (cover frame assembly 20, Fig. 1) mounted atop the vehicle bed (as can be seen in Fig. 1), the shell comprising:
a pair of opposing side walls (frame 22, Fig. 1; the frame has a side wall on each opposing side of the truck bed), each side wall (frame 22, Fig. 1) being configured to be secured to a wall of a bed of a vehicle (bed assembly 70, Fig. 1; bed assembly has walls which secure to the frame 22 as described in Col. 3, Ln. 35-37) so as to extend above the respective wall of the bed of vehicle (as can be seen in Fig. 10);
a front frame member (wall 25, Fig. 1) adjoining each of the pair of opposing side walls (Col. 3, Ln. 47-49);
a rear door section (door assembly 30, Fig. 1), opposing the front frame member (wall 25, Fig. 1) and located adjacent to the pair of opposing side walls (frame 22, Fig. 1) at an end of each of the pair of opposing side walls opposite the front frame member such that the pair of opposing side walls, front frame member and rear door constitute a vehicle storage component (as can be seen in Figs. 1, and 10-11);
and an upper opening of the vehicle storage compartment being formed between the pair of opposing side walls, the front frame member, and the rear door section (as can be seen in Figs. 11-12);
wherein each of the pair of side walls (frame 22, Fig. 1) comprises a rail (track 26, Fig. 8a) to which a rooftop covering (shutter assembly 40, Fig. 1) of the upper opening is slidably engaged (Col. 3, Ln. 37-39 and Col. 4, Ln. 41-45; as can be seen in Figs. 8a and 12).
Regarding claim 8, Sanseviero discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
wherein each of the pair of opposing side walls (frame 22, Fig. 1) are configured to slidably engage with the rooftop covering (shutter assembly 40, Fig. 1) such that the rooftop covering is retractable, or otherwise removable (Col. 3, Ln. 37-39, 62-66 and Col. 4, Ln. 41-45; as can be seen in Figs. 8a and 12).
Regarding claim 9, Sanseviero discloses
an apparatus (cover assembly 10, Fig. 1) comprising:
a pair of side walls (frame 22, Fig. 1; the frame has a side wall on each opposing side of the truck bed), each side wall (frame 22, Fig. 1) being configured to be secured to a wall of a bed of a vehicle (bed assembly 70, Fig. 1; bed assembly has walls which secure to the frame 22 as described in Col. 3, Ln. 35-37) so as to extend above the respective wall of the bed of vehicle (as can be seen in Fig. 10);
a front frame member (wall 25, Fig. 1) adjoining the side walls (Col. 3, Ln. 47-49);
an upper opening formed in between the pair of side walls and the front frame member (as can be seen in Figs. 11-12);
and a retractable rooftop covering (shutter assembly 40, Fig. 1) configured to cover the upper opening and extend towards an end of each of the pair of opposing side walls opposite the front frame member such that the pair of side walls, front frame member, vehicle bed and retractable rooftop covering form sides of a vehicle storage compartment (as can be seen in Figs. 10-12),
wherein each of the pair of side walls (frame 22, Fig. 1) comprises a rail (track 26, Fig. 8a) to which a rooftop covering (shutter assembly 40, Fig. 1) of the upper opening is slidably engaged (Col. 3, Ln. 37-39 and Col. 4, Ln. 41-45; as can be seen in Figs. 8a and 12).
Regarding claim 10, Sanseviero discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
wherein the retractable rooftop covering (shutter assembly 40, Fig. 1) is a tonneau cover (Abstract calls the invention a truck bed cover which is consistent with what one or ordinary skill in the art would define as a tonneau cover).
Regarding claim 12, Sanseviero discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
wherein the retractable rooftop covering (shutter assembly 40, Fig. 1) is affixed to a top edge of the side walls (as can be seen in Figs. 7-9; Col. 3, Ln. 37-39 and Col. 4, Ln. 41-45 the shutter assembly 40 is attached to the track 26 which appears to be disposed at or near the top edge of the frame 22, and the shutter assembly further appears to interact with the top edge of the frame 22 in Figs. 7-8).
Regarding claim 14, Sanseviero discloses
an apparatus (cover assembly 10, Fig. 1) for forming a vehicle storage compartment for a truck, the apparatus comprising:
a pair of side wall means (frame 22, Fig. 1; the frame has a side wall on each opposing side of the truck bed) for attachment to walls of a bed of the truck (bed assembly 70, Fig. 1; bed assembly has walls which secure to the frame 22 as described in Col. 3, Ln. 35-37) so as to extend above the respective wall of the bed of vehicle (as can be seen in Fig. 10);
a front frame means (wall 25, Fig. 1) for adjoining the side wall means (Col. 3, Ln. 47-49);
an upper opening formed in between the pair of side wall means and the front frame means (as can be seen in Figs. 11-12);
and a retractable rooftop covering means (shutter assembly 40, Fig. 1) configured to cover the upper opening and extend towards an end of each of the pair of opposing side wall means opposite the front frame means such that the pair of side wall means, front frame means, truck bed and retractable rooftop covering means form sides of a vehicle storage compartment (as can be seen in Figs. 10-12),
wherein each of the side wall means (frame 22, Fig. 1) comprises a rail (track 26, Fig. 8a) to which the retractable rooftop covering means (shutter assembly 40, Fig. 1) is slidably engaged (Col. 3, Ln. 37-39 and Col. 4, Ln. 41-45; as can be seen in Figs. 8a and 12).
Regarding claim 15, Sanseviero discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
wherein the retractable rooftop covering means (shutter assembly 40, Fig. 1) is a tonneau cover (Abstract calls the invention a truck bed cover which is consistent with what one or ordinary skill in the art would define as a tonneau cover).
Regarding claim 17, Sanseviero discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
wherein the retractable rooftop covering means (shutter assembly 40, Fig. 1) is affixed to a top edge of the side wall means (as can be seen in Figs. 7-9; Col. 3, Ln. 37-39 and Col. 4, Ln. 41-45 the shutter assembly 40 is attached to the track 26 which appears to be disposed at or near the top edge of the frame 22, and the shutter assembly further appears to interact with the top edge of the frame 22 in Figs. 7-8).
Regarding claim 19, Sanseviero discloses
a vehicle storage compartment system (cover assembly 10, Fig. 1) comprising:
a truck bed (bed assembly 70, Fig. 1);
and a truck shell (cover frame assembly 20, Fig. 1) mounted atop the truck bed (as can be seen in Fig. 1), the truck shell comprising:
a pair of side wall means (frame 22, Fig. 1; the frame has a side wall on each opposing side of the truck bed) for attachment to walls of a bed of the truck (bed assembly 70, Fig. 1; bed assembly has walls which secure to the frame 22 as described in Col. 3, Ln. 35-37) so as to extend above the respective wall of the bed of vehicle (as can be seen in Fig. 10);
a front frame means (wall 25, Fig. 1) for adjoining the side wall means (Col. 3, Ln. 47-49);
an upper opening formed in between the pair of side wall means and the front frame means (as can be seen in Figs. 11-12);
and a retractable rooftop covering means (shutter assembly 40, Fig. 1) configured to cover the upper opening and extend towards an end of each of the pair of opposing side wall means opposite the front frame means such that the pair of side wall means, front frame means, truck bed and retractable rooftop covering means form sides of a vehicle storage compartment (as can be seen in Figs. 10-12),
wherein each of the side wall means (frame 22, Fig. 1) comprises a rail (track 26, Fig. 8a) to which the retractable rooftop covering means (shutter assembly 40, Fig. 1) is slidably engaged (Col. 3, Ln. 37-39 and Col. 4, Ln. 41-45; as can be seen in Figs. 8a and 12).
Regarding claim 27, Sanseviero discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
wherein the retractable rooftop covering means (shutter assembly 40, Fig. 1) includes a tonneau cover (Abstract calls the invention a truck bed cover which is consistent with what one or ordinary skill in the art would define as a tonneau cover).
Claims 20-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Parson (US Patent 4848830 A).
Regarding claim 20, Parson discloses
a retractable rooftop covering (camper 26, Fig. 2) configured to be attached to a truck shell (as can be seen in Fig. 2), the retractable rooftop covering comprising:
a retractable tonneau cover (top 32, Fig. 2) including a plurality of retractable panels configured to retract into a forward mounted housing affixed to the truck shell (as can be seen in Fig. 9 where the top 32 is retracted in the compartment 70; Col. 6, Ln. 56-62);
and engagement means (bolts 76, Fig. 11) configured to engage a plurality of holes disposed in side walls of the truck shell (as can be seen in Fig. 11; Col. 5, Ln. 55-58),
wherein the retractable tonneau cover (top 32, Fig. 2) is configured to cover an upper opening of the truck shell when in a deployed position (as can be seen in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 21, Parson discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
wherein the engagement means (bolts 76, Fig. 11) comprises one or more of bolts or vehicle bed clamps (Col. 5, Ln. 55-58).
Regarding claim 22, Parson discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
wherein the retractable tonneau cover (top 32, Fig. 2) is configured to be affixed to a top edge of the side walls of the truck shell (as can be seen in Fig. 2; Col. 4, Ln. 32-54 where the top 32 is attached to the top rail 48 which is the top part of the side panel 28).
Regarding claim 23, Parson discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
wherein the plurality of retractable panels (top 32, Fig. 2) are configured to slide along cover railings (top rail 48, Figs. 5-8) disposed on the side walls of the truck shell (as can be seen in Figs. 5-8; Col. Col. 4, Ln. 50-54).
Regarding claim 24, Parson discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
wherein the plurality of retractable panels (top 32, Fig. 2) comprise pegs, rollers, or pins (rollers 51, Fig. 7) configured to slide along the cover railings (as can be seen in Fig. 7; Col. 4, Ln. 50-54).
Regarding claim 25, Parson discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
wherein the retractable tonneau cover (top 32, Fig. 2) is configured to weatherproof the upper opening of the truck shell when in the deployed position (Col. 2, Ln. 60-67 describes that the sections of the top are closely connected together so even in the camper position it is still a watertight cover).
Regarding claim 26, Parson discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
wherein the retractable rooftop covering (top 32, Fig. 2) is configured to retract into the forward mounted housing (compartment 70, Fig. 9) so as to provide access through the upper opening to the interior of the truck shell (as can be seen in Fig. 3 where the top has been retracted).
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.
Claim(s) 6, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanseviero (US Patent 6767043 B1) in view of “Truck Shell Camper – Storage Loft Build” (from Youtube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iq3KxkfIYsw), henceforth “Truck Shell Camper”.
Regarding claim 6, Sanseviero discloses all the limitations of the claim but does not disclose
wherein a plurality of holes of each of the pair of opposing sidewalls are configured to mount accessories thereto, wherein the accessories include at least one of a cargo basket and a storage rack.
PNG
media_image1.png
657
914
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
701
970
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Screenshots from “Truck Shell Camper” Youtube Video
However, “Truck Shell Camper”, which does not disclose the same truck shell structure, discloses a similar truck shell structure wherein
a plurality of holes of each of the pair of opposing sidewalls (as can be seen in the annotated screenshot above) are configured to mount accessories (storage rack as shown in annotated screenshot above) thereto,
wherein the accessories include at least one of a cargo basket and a storage rack (storage rack as shown in annotated screenshot above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have further modified the cover assembly of Sanseviero with holes in the side wall configured to mount accessories on, such as the storage rack taught by “Truck Camper Shell”. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have made this modification in order to build in another storage area (“Truck Shell Camper” video description as seen in screenshots above).
Regarding claim 13, Sanseviero discloses all the limitations of the claim but does not disclose
wherein the plurality of holes of the side walls are further configured to mount accessories thereto, wherein the accessories include at least one of a cargo basket and a storage rack.
However, “Truck Shell Camper”, which does not disclose the same truck shell structure, discloses a similar truck shell structure wherein
the plurality of holes of the side walls (as can be seen in the annotated screenshot above) are further configured to mount accessories (storage rack as shown in annotated screenshot above) thereto,
wherein the accessories include at least one of a cargo basket and a storage rack (storage rack as shown in annotated screenshot above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have further modified the cover assembly of Sanseviero with holes in the side wall configured to mount accessories on, such as the storage rack taught by “Truck Camper Shell”. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have made this modification in order to build in another storage area (“Truck Shell Camper” video description as seen in screenshots above).
Regarding claim 18, Sanseviero discloses all the limitations of the claim but does not disclose
wherein the plurality of holes of the side wall means are further configured to mount accessories thereto, wherein the accessories include at least one of a cargo basket and a storage rack.
However, “Truck Shell Camper”, which does not disclose the same truck shell structure, discloses a similar truck shell structure wherein
the plurality of holes of the side wall means (as can be seen in the annotated screenshot above) are further configured to mount accessories (storage rack as shown in annotated screenshot above) thereto,
wherein the accessories include at least one of a cargo basket and a storage rack (storage rack as shown in annotated screenshot above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have further modified the cover assembly of Sanseviero with holes in the side wall configured to mount accessories on, such as the storage rack taught by “Truck Camper Shell”. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have made this modification in order to build in another storage area (“Truck Shell Camper” video description as seen in screenshots above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 10-11 of applicant's Remarks, filed 8/27/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 112(a) regarding the limitation involving the “plurality of holes” have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the new amended claim containing a new 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 112(a) rejection, as noted above. Additionally, some of the original rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 112(a) from the Non-Final Rejection mailed 6/4/2026 were not properly addressed, and they have been maintained as noted above.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 10-11 of applicant's Remarks, filed 8/27/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 3-4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) regarding the “rooftop covering” limitation have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 3-4 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5, and 7-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 6 have also been considered but are moot because of a new ground of rejection that still uses the same new reference as the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claims 1-5, and 7-8, as the base reference for the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, but in combination with a previously applied reference in the prior rejection of record, as applied above.
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 Daniel G Chen whose telephone number is (571)272-9669. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-5:30pm.
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.
/D.G.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/JASON S MORROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
