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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
Figures 1-3 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
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.
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.
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 1-8 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 and 7 recite the limitation where the side walls comprise a plurality of holes to which a rooftop covering the upper opening is configured to be attached. This limitation in the claims is inconsistent with the description of the invention in the specification and drawings, and thus is indefinite. For purposes of examination below, the examiner will treat the limitation as meaning that the plurality of holes are configured for attaching the covering. Claims 2-6, and 8 inherit this rejection as they depend on the rejected independent claims 1 and 7.
Claim 6 is further 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 limitation for the plurality of holes of the sidewall being further configured to mount accessories is not consistent with the limitation provided earlier in claim 1, thus it is indefinite. For purposes of examination, the examiner will treat this limitation as meaning a separate plurality of holes, from the aforementioned interpretation for the limitation in claim 1, configured to mount accessories.
Claims 3-4 are further 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. Clams 3-4 are both dependent on claim 2 which sets forth that “the rooftop covering is one of a collapsible rooftop covering, a retractable rooftop covering, or a removal rooftop covering.” This limitation explicitly contemplates that the rooftop covering may be only a collapsible rooftop covering, a retractable rooftop covering or a removable rooftop covering. Therefore, claim 3 is indefinite because in the embodiment of the claimed invention wherein the rooftop covering is a collapsible or retractable rooftop covering, claim 3 does not further limit claim 2 (which is a requirement of a dependent claim) since claim 3 further limits a removable rooftop covering where one does not exist because the covering is either a collapsible rooftop or a retractable rooftop covering. Claim 4 is rejected for a similar reason as claim 3. In the embodiments wherein the rooftop covering is either a collapsible or a removable rooftop covering, claim 4 does not further limit claim 2 because claim 4 further limits a retractable rooftop covering where none exists because the covering is either a collapsible or removable covering. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the Office will interpret claim 3 to be limited to an embodiment wherein the rooftop covering in claim 2 is only a removable rooftop covering and the Office will interpret claim 4 to be limited to an embodiment wherein the rooftop covering is only a retractable rooftop covering.
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 1-8 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 claims 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 the independent claims 1 and 7, there is reference made to the side wall having a plurality of holes to which a rooftop covering is configured to be attached, however there is no support for this in the disclosure. The disclosure teaches the holes being used for mounting accessories, but not for attaching the roof covering. Thus, there is no written description support for this limitation in the claims. Claims 2-6, and 8 inherit this rejection since they depend on these rejected independent 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.
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 not written description support for the claim language.
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 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenwood (US Patent 7438342 B2) in view of Voss (US Patent 11376937 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Greenwood discloses
an apparatus (10, Fig. 1; truck topper, Abstract) comprising:
a pair of opposing side walls (left side wall 16 and right side wall 18, Fig. 3) each side wall being configured to be secured to a wall of a bed of a vehicle (as can be seen in Fig. 2; Col. 6, Ln. 28-35, 60-67);
a front frame member (front wall 12, not shown; Col. 6, Ln. 10-17) adjoining the opposing side walls (Col. 6, Ln. 10-17, 50-59);
a rear door section (retractable door 29, Fig. 2), opposing the front frame member and also adjoining the opposing side walls (as can be seen in Fig. 2; Col. 6, Ln. 50-59);
Greenwood does not teach
an upper opening formed in between the pair of side walls, the front frame member, and the rear door section;
wherein the side walls comprise a plurality of holes to which a rooftop covering the upper opening is configured to be attached.
PNG
media_image1.png
291
459
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 19 from Voss
Voss discloses a similar vehicle canopy apparatus (as seen in annotated Fig. 19 above) and teaches these missing elements from Greenwood
an upper opening formed in between the pair of side walls, the front frame member, and the rear door section (as shown in annotated Fig. 19 above);
wherein the side walls comprise a plurality of holes to which a rooftop covering the upper opening is configured to be attached (as shown in annotated Fig. 19 above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the truck topper of Greenwood to have made the rooftop covering a separate piece from the side walls covering the upper opening, with a plurality of holes in the sidewall configured for attaching the rooftop covering to the side walls, as taught by Voss. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination since it would make the whole structure easy to construct with respect to having the separate parts, and to have the attachment holes for flush fitting between the side wall and the rooftop covering (Voss; Col. 1, Ln. 18-33 ;Col. 2, Ln. 20-32; see annotated Fig. 19 above).
Regarding claim 7, Greenwood discloses
a system (10, Fig. 1) comprising:
a truck bed (pickup bed 62, Fig. 1);
and a truck shell (truck topper, Abstract) mounted atop the truck bed (Col. 6, Ln. 10-49; Fig. 1), the truck shell comprising:
a pair of opposing side walls (left side wall 16 and right side wall 18, Fig. 3) each side wall being configured to be secured to a wall of a bed of a vehicle (as can be seen in Fig. 2; Col. 6, Ln. 28-35, 60-67);
a front frame member (front wall 12, not shown; Col. 6, Ln. 10-17) adjoining the opposing side walls (Col. 6, Ln. 10-17, 50-59);
a rear door section (retractable door 29, Fig. 2), opposing the front frame member and also adjoining the opposing side walls (as can be seen in Fig. 2; Col. 6, Ln. 50-59);
Greenwood does not teach
an upper opening formed in between the pair of side walls, the front frame member, and the rear door section;
wherein the side walls comprise a plurality of holes to which a rooftop covering the upper opening is configured to be attached.
Voss discloses a similar vehicle canopy apparatus (as seen in annotated Fig. 19 above) and teaches these missing elements from Greenwood
an upper opening formed in between the pair of side walls, the front frame member, and the rear door section (as shown in annotated Fig. 19 above);
wherein the side walls comprise a plurality of holes to which a rooftop covering the upper opening is configured to be attached (as shown in annotated Fig. 19 above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the truck topper of Greenwood to have made the rooftop covering a separate piece from the side walls covering the upper opening, with a plurality of holes in the sidewall configured for attaching the rooftop covering to the side walls, as taught by Voss. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination since it would make the whole structure easy to construct with respect to having the separate parts, and to have the attachment holes for flush fitting between the side wall and the rooftop covering (Voss; Col. 1, Ln. 18-33 ;Col. 2, Ln. 20-32; see annotated Fig. 19 above).
Claims 2-3, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenwood (US Patent 7438342 B2) in view of Voss (US Patent 11376937 B2), further in view of Frankham (US Patent Application 2008/0067830 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Greenwood, as modified above by Voss, discloses all the limitations of the claim, except wherein
the rooftop covering is one of a collapsible rooftop covering, a retractable rooftop covering, or a removable rooftop covering;
and wherein the side walls are configured for attachment to each of a collapsible rooftop covering, a retractable rooftop covering, or a removable rooftop covering.
PNG
media_image2.png
466
656
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 from Frankham
Frankham teaches a similar truck bed shell cover structure (as seen in annotated Fig. 1 above), wherein
the rooftop covering is one of a collapsible rooftop covering, a retractable rooftop covering, or a removable rooftop covering (roof section 12, Fig. 1; Paragraph [0025] and [0026]);
and wherein the side walls (as shown in annotated Fig. 1 above) are configured for attachment to each of a collapsible rooftop covering, a retractable rooftop covering, or a removable rooftop covering (as can be seen in annotated Fig. 1 above; Paragraph [0027]).
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 truck bed shell cover structure of Greenwood, as modified by Voss, to have a removable rooftop, as taught by Frankham. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow for a separate module construction structure and different structure configurations (Frankham; Paragraph [0025] and [0027]).
Regarding claim 3, Greenwood, as modified by Voss, and further modified by Frankham, discloses all the limitations of the claim, and further teaches wherein
the removable rooftop covering comprises at least one removable panel (Frankham; Paragraph [0025]).
Regarding claim 8, Greenwood, as modified above by Voss, discloses all the limitations of the claim, except wherein
the rooftop covering is one of a collapsible rooftop covering, a retractable rooftop covering, or a removable rooftop covering;
and wherein the side walls are configured for attachment to each of a collapsible rooftop covering, a retractable rooftop covering, or a removable rooftop covering.
Frankham teaches a similar truck bed shell cover structure (as seen in annotated Fig. 1 above), wherein
the rooftop covering is one of a collapsible rooftop covering, a retractable rooftop covering, or a removable rooftop covering (roof section 12, Fig. 1; Paragraph [0025] and [0026]);
and wherein the side walls (as shown in annotated Fig. 1 above) are configured for attachment to each of a collapsible rooftop covering, a retractable rooftop covering, or a removable rooftop covering (as can be seen in annotated Fig. 1 above; Paragraph [0027]).
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 truck bed shell cover structure of Greenwood, as modified by Voss, to have a removable rooftop, as taught by Frankham. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow for a separate module construction structure and different structure configurations (Frankham; Paragraph [0025] and [0027]).
Claims 2, 4, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenwood (US Patent 7438342 B2) in view of Voss (US Patent 11376937 B2), further in view of Hunt (US Patent 11260918 B2).
Regarding claim 2, Greenwood, as modified above by Voss, discloses all the limitations of the claim, except wherein
the rooftop covering is one of a collapsible rooftop covering, a retractable rooftop covering, or a removable rooftop covering;
and wherein the side walls are configured for attachment to each of a collapsible rooftop covering, a retractable rooftop covering, or a removable rooftop covering.
PNG
media_image3.png
442
565
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 7 from Hunt
Hunt teaches a similar truck bed shell cover structure (as seen in annotated Fig. 7 above), wherein
the rooftop covering is one of a collapsible rooftop covering, a retractable rooftop covering, or a removable rooftop covering (cover 208, annotated Fig. 7 above);
and wherein the side walls (as shown in annotated Fig. 7 above) are configured for attachment to each of a collapsible rooftop covering, a retractable rooftop covering, or a removable rooftop covering (as can be seen in annotated Fig. 7 above Col. 2, Ln. 9-16).
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 truck bed shell cover structure of Greenwood, as modified by Voss, to have a removable rooftop, as taught by Hunt. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have an enclosed space of the truck bed that protects items from the elements but is also easily accessible (Hunt; Col. 1, Ln. 40-43).
Regarding claim 4, Greenwood, as modified above by Voss, and further modified by Hunt, discloses all the limitations of the claim, and further teaches wherein
the retractable roof covering is a tonneau cover (Hunt; Col. 2, Ln. 9-16; as shown in annotated Fig. 7 above).
Regarding claim 8, Greenwood, as modified above by Voss, discloses all the limitations of the claim, except wherein
the rooftop covering is one of a collapsible rooftop covering, a retractable rooftop covering, or a removable rooftop covering;
and wherein the side walls are configured for attachment to each of a collapsible rooftop covering, a retractable rooftop covering, or a removable rooftop covering.
Hunt teaches a similar truck bed shell cover structure (as seen in annotated Fig. 7 above), wherein
the rooftop covering is one of a collapsible rooftop covering, a retractable rooftop covering, or a removable rooftop covering (cover 208, annotated Fig. 7 above);
and wherein the side walls (as shown in annotated Fig. 7 above) are configured for attachment to each of a collapsible rooftop covering, a retractable rooftop covering, or a removable rooftop covering (as can be seen in annotated Fig. 7 above Col. 2, Ln. 9-16).
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 truck bed shell cover structure of Greenwood, as modified by Voss, to have a removable rooftop, as taught by Hunt. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have an enclosed space of the truck bed that protects items from the elements but is also easily accessible (Hunt; Col. 1, Ln. 40-43).
Claims 2, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenwood (US Patent 7438342 B2) in view of Voss (US Patent 11376937 B2), further in view of Daylong (US Patent 8708397 B2).
Regarding claim 2, Greenwood, as modified above by Voss, discloses all the limitations of the claim, except wherein
the rooftop covering is one of a collapsible rooftop covering, a retractable rooftop covering, or a removable rooftop covering;
and wherein the side walls are configured for attachment to each of a collapsible rooftop covering, a retractable rooftop covering, or a removable rooftop covering.
PNG
media_image4.png
431
674
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 11 from Daylong
Daylong discloses a similar truck bed cover shell structure (protective ridged shell 2, Fig. 11), wherein
the rooftop covering is one of a collapsible rooftop covering, a retractable rooftop covering, or a removable rooftop covering (rear hatch door 4, as seen in annotated Fig. 11 above);
and wherein the side walls (as shown above in annotated Fig. 11) are configured for attachment to each of a collapsible rooftop covering, a retractable rooftop covering, or a removable rooftop covering (as can be seen in annotated Fig. 11).
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 truck bed cover shell of Greenwood, as modified by Voss, to have a retractable covering as taught by Daylong. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modifications in order to enable for better and easier access to the inside of the truck bed (Daylong; Col. 2, Ln. 64-Col. 3, Ln. 5).
Regarding claim 5, Greenwood, as modified above by Voss, and further modified by Daylong, discloses all the limitations of the claim, and further teaches wherein
the rooftop covering (Daylong; rear hatch door 4, Fig. 11) is a clam shell cover (Daylong; as can be seen in annotated Fig. 11 above).
Regarding claim 8, Greenwood, as modified above by Voss, discloses all the limitations of the claim, except wherein
the rooftop covering is one of a collapsible rooftop covering, a retractable rooftop covering, or a removable rooftop covering;
and wherein the side walls are configured for attachment to each of a collapsible rooftop covering, a retractable rooftop covering, or a removable rooftop covering.
Daylong discloses a similar truck bed cover shell structure (protective ridged shell 2, Fig. 11), wherein
the rooftop covering is one of a collapsible rooftop covering, a retractable rooftop covering, or a removable rooftop covering (rear hatch door 4, as seen in annotated Fig. 11 above);
and wherein the side walls (as shown above in annotated Fig. 11) are configured for attachment to each of a collapsible rooftop covering, a retractable rooftop covering, or a removable rooftop covering (as can be seen in annotated Fig. 11).
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 truck bed cover shell of Greenwood, as modified by Voss, to have a retractable covering as taught by Daylong. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modifications in order to enable for better and easier access to the inside of the truck bed (Daylong; Col. 2, Ln. 64-Col. 3, Ln. 5).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenwood (US Patent 7438342 B2) in view of Voss (US Patent 11376937 B2) and Frankham (US Patent Application 2008/0067830 A1), and further 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, Greenwood, as modified above by Voss and Frankham, teaches all the limitations of the claim, except for wherein
the plurality of holes of the sidewall are further configured to mount accessories thereto, wherein the accessories include one or more of a cargo basket or a storage rack.
PNG
media_image5.png
1057
1470
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Screenshot from “Truck Shell Camper” Youtube Video
“Truck Shell Camper”, while not teaching the same truck shell structure, does disclose a truck shell structure (as seen in the screenshot provided above) wherein
the plurality of holes of the sidewall (as shown in the annotated screenshot below) are further configured to mount accessories thereto,
wherein the accessories include one or more of a cargo basket or a storage rack (storage rack as shown in annotated screenshot below).
PNG
media_image6.png
1071
1482
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated Screenshot from “Truck Shell Camper” Youtube Video
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 truck bed cover shell structure of Greenwood, as modified by Voss and Frankham, 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. These references disclose similar truck bed cover shell structures, either teaching a removable or retractable rooftop cover.
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
/VIVEK D KOPPIKAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3612
June 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights