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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Applicant’s claims, filed on 08/06/2026.
Claims 1, 14, 21, 26 and 31 have been amended.
Claims 1-33 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 08/06/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-33 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the drawings and claims have overcome each objection and rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action filed 05/08/2026. Applicant's argument with respect to the prior art rejections of claims 1-33 have been considered and found persuasive; therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the previously presented prior art rejections of the claims, Applicant argues that Weltikol fails to disclose a second configuration, wherein the first panel and the third panel are adjacent stacked panels, with the third panel positioned directly above the first panel as defined by the newly amended limitations. Examiner finds this argument persuasive, therefore the rejections have been withdrawn. A new prior art reference, Thoman et al. (US5,595,417), has been added to address the newly added claim limitations.
Therefore, upon further consideration, the amendments raise new issues and a new ground(s) of rejection is made using a different combination of prior art references.
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 1-2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thoman et al. (US5,595,417).
Claim 1. Thoman discloses: A tonneau cover (26 tonneau cover, Fig.1), comprising: a tri-panel cover arrangement (three panels, Fig. 17) comprising
a first panel (32 front panel, Fig. 17),
a second panel (30 center panel, Fig. 17), and
a third panel (34 rear panel, Fig. 17),
wherein the first panel is hingedly coupled to the second panel with one or more first hinges (36 hinge, Fig. 3) to enable the first panel to transition from a first configuration in which the first panel and the second panel are substantially coplanar (Fig. 4) to a second configuration in which the first panel is stacked on top of the second panel in an inverted configuration (Fig. 17), and
wherein the second panel is hingedly coupled to the third panel with one or more second hinges (38 hinge, Fig. 4) to enable the second panel to transition from the first configuration in which the second panel and the third panel are substantially coplanar (Fig. 4) to the second configuration in which the third panel is stacked on top of the first panel in an inverted configuration (Fig. 17),
wherein, in the second configuration, the first panel and the third panel are adjacent stacked panels, with the third panel positioned directly above the first panel (32 and 34 are adjacent stacked directly upon each other, Fig. 17).
Claim 2. Thoman discloses: The tonneau cover of claim 1, wherein the one or more first hinges provides a first pivot point positioned at a first distance above a top surface of the second panel (Fig. 3, 17 depicts an end of the hinge structure coupling 32 to 30 to be a distance above the top surface of 30), and the one or more second hinges provide a second pivot point positioned at a second distance above the top surface of the second panel (Fig. 17 depicts an end of the hinge structure coupling 30 to 34 to be a different distance above the top surface of 30), wherein the second distance is greater than the first distance by at least a thickness of the first panel (Fig. 17 depicts an end of the hinge structure coupling 30 to 34 to be a distance greater than a thickness of 32 above the top surface of 30).
Claim 4. Thoman discloses: The tonneau cover of claim 1, wherein the first panel defines a hinge edge extending substantially orthogonal to a top surface of the first panel (hinged edges between panels as depicted in Fig. 17).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thoman et al. (US5,595,417) in view of Chverchko et al. (US6,883,855).
Claim 3. Thoman discloses: The tonneau cover of claim 1.
Thoman does not disclose: wherein the tri-panel cover arrangement is constructed of sheet metal.
Chverchko discloses a cover for the rear storage compartment of a pickup wherein the cover is comprised of at least two panels made of a rigid material.
Chverchko teaches: sheet metal (metal with 0.05 to 3 inch thickness; Col. 5, line 66 – Col. 6 line 12).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the cover of Thoman with a metal cover of Chverchko with a reasonable expectation of success as suggested by Chverchko because both perform the same function in similar contexts. Such a substitution represents the use of a known element according to its established function, and the results would have been predictable. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 10, 13, 16, and 26 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thoman et al. (US5,595,417) in view of Weltikol et al. (US9,597,995).
Claim 10. Thoman discloses: The tonneau cover of claim 1.
Thoman does not disclose: a rail assembly slidably coupling at least the second panel to a truck bed, the rail assembly configured to enable the tri-panel cover arrangement to selectively slide at least one of forward or aft relative to the truck bed in a folded configuration.
Weltikol discloses a multiple panel cover pivotally connected together and foldable between a stacked arrangement and a deployed arrangement
Weltikol teaches: a rail assembly (40 side rails, Fig. 4-5) slidably coupling at least the second panel to a truck bed (44 wheels couple panels to 40 on 11 cargo box, Fig. 3-10; Col. 4, lines 33-47), the rail assembly configured to enable the tri-panel cover arrangement to selectively slide at least one of forward or aft relative to the truck bed in a folded configuration (Fig. 7-8, 14-16 depicts panels sliding along 40; Col. 5, lines 19-39 and Col. 6, lines 19-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the cover of Thoman by including the rail assembly as taught by Weltikol with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have a cover that is more easily configured into a stowed position so that the folded, stacked panels do not obscure sightlines through the rear window or unnecessarily obscure access to the truck box as taught by Weltikol (Col. 1, lines 35-41).
Claim 13. Thoman in view of Weltikol: The tonneau cover of claim 10, wherein at least one of the first panel or the third panel includes a latch assembly (Thoman: 84 latching means; Fig. 4) configured to selectively grip a striker element of the rail assembly (Thoman: 100 striker, Fig. 17).
Claim 16. Thoman in view of Weltikol teach: The tonneau cover of claim 10, wherein the rail assembly defines one or more lift out zones (Weltikol: transition between 40 rails and 46 storage rails, Fig. 12) configured to enable portions of one or more roller carriages operably coupled to the tri-panel cover arrangement (Weltikol: structure coupling 44 to 24, Fig. 4-5) to pass therethrough, enabling the tri-panel cover arrangement to be removed from or re-coupled to the rail assembly (Weltikol: panels are de-coupled from 40 rails for storage, and re-coupled for deployment, Fig. 7-12; Col. 5, line 4 – Col. 6, line 50).
Claim 26. Thoman discloses: A tonneau cover, comprising: a tri-panel cover arrangement comprising a first panel, a second panel, and a third panel, wherein the first panel is hingedly coupled to the second panel via a first hinge, and the second panel is hingedly coupled to the third panel via a second hinge, wherein the first panel is configured to transition from a first configuration in which the first panel and the second panel are substantially coplanar to a second configuration in which the first panel is stacked on top of the second panel in an inverted configuration, wherein the third panel is configured to transition from the first configuration in which the second panel and the third panel are substantially coplanar to the second configuration in which the third panel is stacked on top of the first panel in an inverted configuration, and wherein, in the second configuration, the first panel and the third panel are adjacent stacked panels, with the third panel positioned directly above the first panel (see previously rejected claim 1).
Thoman does not disclose: a rail assembly slidably coupling at least the second panel to a truck bed to enable at least the second panel to selectively slide at least one of forward or aft relative to the truck bed.
Weltikol further teaches: a rail assembly slidably coupling at least the second panel to a truck bed to enable at least the second panel to selectively slide at least one of forward or aft relative to the truck bed (see previously rejected claims 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the cover of Thoman by including the rail assembly as taught by Weltikol with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have a cover that is more easily configured into a stowed position so that the folded, stacked panels do not obscure sightlines through the rear window or unnecessarily obscure access to the truck box as taught by Weltikol (Col. 1, lines 35-41).
Claims 13, 15, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thoman et al. (US5,595,417) in view of Weltikol et al. (US9,597,995) and further in view of Chverchko et al. (US6,883,855).
Claim 13. Thoman in view of Weltikol teach: The tonneau cover of claim 10.
Thoman in view of Weltikol does not disclose: wherein at least one of the first panel or the third panel includes a latch assembly configured to selectively grip a striker element of the rail assembly.
Chverchko discloses a cover for the rear storage compartment of a pickup wherein the cover is comprised of at least two panels made of a rigid material.
Chverchko teaches: wherein at least one of the first panel or the third panel includes a latch assembly (locking rods 25, Fig. 3-9) configured to selectively grip a striker element of the rail assembly (underside to bedrail 56, Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cover of Thoman in view of Weltikol with the latches of Chverchko with a reasonable expectation of success in order to restrain the cover to the bed as taught by Chvercko (Fig. 8).
Claim 15. Thoman in view of Weltikol and further in view of Chverchko teach: The tonneau cover of claim 13, wherein the latch assembly includes a first latch assembly positioned on a first side of the first panel, and a second latch assembly positioned on a second, opposite side of the first panel (Chverchko: 25 rods opposite of each other, Fig. 7), and wherein at least one of a cable or linkage connects the first latch assembly to the second latch assembly enabling simultaneous action of both the first latch assembly and the second latch assembly (Chverchko: 26 locking mechanism comprising of linkages Fig. 2-3, 7).
Claim 28. Thoman in view of Weltikol teach: The tonneau cover of claim 26.
Thoman in view of Weltikol does not teach: wherein at least one of the first panel, the second panel or the third panel includes a latch assembly configured to selectively grip a portion of the rail assembly.
Chverchko further teaches: at least one of the first panel, the second panel or the third panel includes a latch assembly configured to selectively grip a portion of the rail assembly (see previously rejected claim 13).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cover of Thoman in view of Weltikol with the latches of Chverchko with a reasonable expectation of success in order to restrain the cover to the bed as taught by Chvercko (Fig. 8).
Claim 29. Thoman in view of Weltikol and further in view of Chverchko teach: The tonneau cover of claim 28, wherein the latch assembly includes a first latch assembly positioned on a first side of at least one of the first panel, the second panel or the third panel, and a second latch assembly positioned on a second, opposite side of the first panel, the second panel or the third panel, and wherein at least one of a cable or linkage connects the first latch assembly to the second latch assembly for simultaneous operation (see previously rejected claim 15).
Claim 30. Thoman in view of Weltikol and further in view of Chverchko teach: The tonneau cover of claim 29, wherein the first latch assembly and the second latch assembly are actuated both by a locking actuator member (see previously rejected claim 15).
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thoman et al. (US5,595,417) in view of Chverchko et al. (US6,883,855).
Claim 17. Thoman discloses: The tonneau cover of claim 1.
Thoman does not disclose: wherein the at least one of the one or more first hinges are configured to enable removal of the first panel from the second panel, or the one or more second hinges are configured to enable removal of the third panel from the second panel.
Chverchko further teaches: the at least one of the one or more first hinges are configured to enable removal of the first panel from the second panel, or the one or more second hinges are configured to enable removal of the third panel from the second panel (removal of…panel combinations, Fig. 12; Col. 7, lines 35-39).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cover of Thoman by having removable panels as taught by Chverchko with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have a cover that is more easily configured into a stowed position so that the folded, stacked panels do not obscure sightlines through the rear window or unnecessarily obscure access to the truck box as taught by Weltikol (Col. 1, lines 35-41).
Claim 18. Thoman discloses: The tonneau cover of claim 1.
Thoman does not disclose: further comprising one or more tiedowns, wherein the one or more tiedowns define a curved shape including a pair of saddles configured to aid in maintaining a tautness of a tiedown strap.
Chverchko further teaches: further comprising one or more tiedowns, wherein the one or more tiedowns define a curved shape including a pair of saddles configured to aid in maintaining a tautness of a tiedown strap (28 tied downs, Fig. 1-2; tie downs such as, but not limited to, cleats, rails, rings, or other known means; Col. 6, lines 50-55).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cover of Thoman with tiedowns as taught by Chverchko in order to secure objects to the top of the cover as taught by Chverchko (Col. 6, lines 50-55).
Claim 19. Thoman discloses: The tonneau cover of claim 1.
Thoman does not disclose: wherein the first panel includes a first tiedown, the second panel includes a second tiedown, and the third panel includes a third tiedown.
Chverchko further teaches: the first panel includes a first tiedown, the second panel includes a second tiedown, and the third panel includes a third tiedown (28 tiedowns on all panels, Fig. 1-2).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cover of Thoman with tiedowns as taught by Chverchko in order to secure objects to the top of the cover as taught by Chverchko (Col. 6, lines 50-55).
Claims 5-9, 21, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thoman et al. (US5,595,417) in view of Gooding (US7,131,684).
Claim 5. Thoman discloses: The tonneau cover of claim 4.
Thoman does not disclose: a bottom edge of the hinge edge is bent inwardly substantially orthogonal to the hinge edge for improved structural rigidity.
Gooding discloses a multi-panel elevated vehicle bed cover comprising of a channel along the hinge edge for preventing water from entering the vehicle bed.
Gooding teaches: a bottom edge of the hinge edge is bent inwardly substantially orthogonal to the hinge edge for improved structural rigidity (62 channel is bent inwardly orthogonal to the hinge edge 80, Fig. 14-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the cover of Thoman by including channels on the panels as taught by Gooding with a reasonable expectation of success in order to prevent water from entering the vehicle bed as taught by Gooding (Fig. 14-15; Col. 2, line 65 – Col. 3, line 7). Such a modification would result in improved structural rigidity as the claim only requires this structure to achieve this function.
Claim 6. Thoman in view of Gooding teach: The tonneau cover of claim 5, wherein a first height of the hinge edge represented by a distance between the top surface and the bottom edge is less than a second height of the other edges of the first panel (Gooding: distance between top surface of 12 panel to internal surface of 62 channel is less than distance between top surface of 12 and bottom external surface of 62, Fig. 14-15).
Claim 7. Thoman discloses: The tonneau cover of claim 1.
Gooding further teaches: water collection channel (Gooding: 62 channel captures water; Col. 2, line 65 – Col. 3, line 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the cover of Thoman by including channels on the panels as taught by Gooding with a reasonable expectation of success in order to prevent water from entering the vehicle bed as taught by Gooding (Fig. 14-15; Col. 2, line 65 – Col. 3, line 7). Such a modification would result in improved structural rigidity as the claim only requires this structure to achieve this function.
Claim 8. Thoman in view of Gooding teach: The tonneau cover of claim 7, wherein the water collection channel defines a hinge edge extending substantially orthogonal to a top surface of the second panel, a channel bottom extending outwardly from the hinge edge, and a side wall extending upwardly from the channel bottom to collectively form three sides of the water collection channel (Gooding: Fig. 14-15).
Claim 9. Thoman in view of Gooding teach: The tonneau cover of claim 8, wherein the water collection channel extends over a rail assembly (Thoman: 80 attachment bar, Fig. 9; Gooding: 18 support legs, Fig. 1) to providing a path for removal of moisture introduced between the first panel and the second panel (Gooding: 62 channel extends over 18 rails, Fig. 1-6, 14-16, 17A).
Claim 21. Thoman discloses: A tonneau cover, comprising: a tri-panel cover arrangement comprising a first panel, a second panel, and a third panel, wherein the first panel is hingedly coupled to the second panel via a first hinge, and the second panel is hingedly coupled to the third panel via a second hinge (see previously rejected claim 1), a rail assembly configured to support the first panel, the second panel, and the third panel, wherein the second panel is configured to lay flat on the rail assembly in the closed configuration (80 support bar, supports all panels an 30 lays flat on 80; Fig. 9, 17).
Thoman does not disclose: the second panel defines at least one water collection channel including a hinge edge extending substantially orthogonal to a top surface of the second panel, channel bottom extending outwardly from the hinge edge, and a side wall extending upwardly from the channel bottom to collectively form three sides of the water collection channel, wherein the water collection channel is positionable beneath at least one of the first hinge or the second hinge and extends over the rail assembly to provide a path for removal of moisture introduced between the first panel, the second panel, and the third panel.
Gooding further teaches: the second panel defines at least one water collection channel including a hinge edge extending substantially orthogonal to a top surface of the second panel, channel bottom extending outwardly from the hinge edge, and a side wall extending upwardly from the channel bottom to collectively form three sides of the water collection channel, wherein the water collection channel is positionable beneath at least one of the first hinge or the second hinge and extends over the rail assembly to provide a path for removal of moisture introduced between the first panel, the second panel, and the third panel (see previously rejected claims 4-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the cover of Thoman by including channels on the panels as taught by Gooding with a reasonable expectation of success in order to prevent water from entering the vehicle bed as taught by Gooding (Fig. 14-15; Col. 2, line 65 – Col. 3, line 7). Such a modification would result in improved structural rigidity as the claim only requires this structure to achieve this function.
Claim 23. Thoman in view of Gooding teach: The tonneau cover of claim 21, wherein the first panel defines the hinge edge extending substantially orthogonal to the top surface of the first panel (Thoman: Fig. 17; Weltikol: hinge edges as depicted in Fig. 1).
Claim 24. Thoman in view of Gooding teach: The tonneau cover of claim 23, wherein a bottom edge of the hinge edge is bent inwardly substantially orthogonal to the hinge edge for improved structural rigidity (see previously rejected claim 5).
Claim 25. Thoman in view of Gooding teach: The tonneau cover of claim 24, wherein a first height of the hinge edge represented by a distance between the top surface and the bottom edge is less than a second height of the other edges of the first panel (see previously rejected claim 6).
Claims 31 and 33 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thoman et al. (US5,595,417) in view of Weltikol et al. (US9,597,995) and further in view of Gooding (US7,131,684).
Claim 31. Thoman discloses: A tonneau cover, comprising: a tri-panel cover arrangement including at least a first panel, a second panel, and a third panel wherein, the first panel is hingedly coupled to the second panel with one or more first hinges to enable the first panel to transition from a first configuration, in which the first panel and the second panel are substantially coplanar, to a second configuration, in which the first panel is stacked on top of the second panel in an inverted configuration, wherein the second panel is hingedly coupled to the third panel with one or more second hinges to enable the third panel to transition from the first configuration, in which the second panel and the third panel are substantially coplanar, to the second configuration, in which the third panel is stacked on top of the first panel in an inverted configuration, and wherein, in the second configuration, the first panel and the third panel are adjacent stacked panels, with the third panel positioned directly above the first panel (see previously rejected claim 1).
Thoman does not disclose: a rail assembly slidably coupling at least the second panel to a truck bed to enable at least the second panel to selectively slide relative to the truck bed, the first panel includes one or more hooks configured to pivot into engaging contact with the rail assembly when the first panel is transitioned to the first configuration to restrict vertical movement of the tri-panel cover arrangement relative to the rail assembly.
Weltikol further teaches: a rail assembly slidably coupling at least the second panel to a truck bed to enable at least the second panel to selectively slide relative to the truck bed (see previously rejected claim 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the cover of Thoman by including the rail assembly as taught by Weltikol with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have a cover that is more easily configured into a stowed position so that the folded, stacked panels do not obscure sightlines through the rear window or unnecessarily obscure access to the truck box as taught by Weltikol (Col. 1, lines 35-41).
Thoman in view of Weltikol does not teach: one or more hooks configured to pivot into engaging contact with the rail assembly to restrict vertical movement of the tri-panel cover arrangement relative to the rail assembly
Gooding further teaches: one or more hooks (44 handle, 46 shaft and 49 pin, Fig. 10) configured to pivot (44 and 48 are rotated to position 49; Col. 7, lines 14-30) into engaging contact with the rail assembly to restrict vertical movement of the tri-panel cover arrangement relative to the rail assembly (latches panel to vehicle, Col. 7, lines 14-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the cover of Thoman in view of Weltikol by including the pivoting latching pin as taught by Gooding with a reasonable expectation of success in order latch the panel to the vehicle to restrict vertical movement as taught by Gooding (Fig. 10; Col. 7, lines 14-30).
Claim 33. Thoman in view of Weltikol in further in view of Gooding teaches: The tonneau cover of claim 31, wherein at least one of the first panel, the second panel or a third panel includes a latch assembly configured to selectively grip a portion of the rail assembly (Gooding: 44 handle, 46 shaft and 49 pin, Fig. 10; latches panel to vehicle, Col. 7, lines 14-30; see previously rejected claim 31).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thoman et al. (US5,595,417) in view of Gooding (US7131684) and further in view of Chverchko et al. (US6,883,855).
Claim 22. Thoman in view of Gooding teach: The tonneau cover of claim 21.
Weltikol in view of Gooding does not teach: wherein the tri-panel cover arrangement is constructed of sheet metal.
Chverchko discloses a cover for the rear storage compartment of a pickup wherein the cover is comprised of at least two panels made of a rigid material.
Chverchko teaches: sheet metal (metal with 0.05 to 3 inch thickness; Col. 5, line 66 – Col. 6 line 12).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the cover of Thoman in view of Gooding with a metal cover with a reasonable expectation of success as suggested by Chverchko because both perform the same function in similar contexts. Such a substitution represents the use of a known element according to its established function, and the results would have been predictable. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 11-12 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thoman et al. (US5,595,417) in view of Weltikol et al. (US9,597,995) and further in view of Anderson (US3,640,565).
Claim 11. Thoman in view of Weltikol teach: The tonneau cover of claim 10.
Thoman in view of Weltikol does not teah: wherein the rail assembly defines at least two detents configured to receive at least two roller wheels operably coupled to the tri-panel cover arrangement.
Anderson discloses a telescopic cover assembly for open bed vehicles comprising a plurality wheels and detents coupled to rails.
Anderson teaches: at least two detents (96-97 recess, Fig. 19) configured to receive at least two roller wheels (84 wheels, Fig. 19) operably coupled to the tri-panel cover (cover segment; Col. 10, lines 40-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the cover of Thoman in view of Weltikol by including the detents coupled to rails as taught by Anderson with a reasonable expectation of success in order position the cover into predetermined positions as taught by Anderson (Fig. 19). Such a modification would result in shifting the weight to the edge of cover as the claim only requires this structure to achieve this function.
Claim 12. Thoman in view of Weltikol and further in view of Anderson teach: The tonneau cover of claim 11, wherein a first spacing between the at least two roller wheels corresponds to a second spacing between the at least two detents, enabling at least partial receipt of the at least two roller wheels within the at least two detents to shift weight from one or more rollers to an edge of the tri-panel cover arrangement for improved environmental sealing (Anderson; Fig. 19 depicts first and second spacing of detents and wheels).
Claim 27. Thoman in view of Weltikol teach: The tonneau cover of claim 26.
Thoman in view Weltikol does not teach: wherein the rail assembly defines one or more detents configured to enable shifting of weight from one or more rollers to an edge of the tri-panel cover arrangement for improved environmental sealing.
Anderson further teaches: one or more detents configured to enable shifting of weight from one or more rollers to an edge of the tri-panel cover arrangement for improved environmental sealing. (see previously rejected claim 12).
Claim 20 is rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thoman et al. (US5,595,417) in view of Anderson (US3,640,565).
Claim 20. Thoman discloses: The tonneau cover of claim 1.
Thoman does not disclose: further comprising a translation prevention mechanism configured to secure the second panel in a predetermined position along a rail assembly.
Anderson further teaches: a translation prevention mechanism configured to secure the second panel in a predetermined position (81 wheels, 96-97 recesses; engagement of wheels in recesses retain the cover in a predetermined position; Fig. 19, Col. 10 lines 40-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the cover of Weltikol by including the detents coupled to rails as taught by Anderson with a reasonable expectation of success in order position the cover into predetermined positions as taught by Anderson (Fig. 19). Such a modification would result in shifting the weight to the edge of cover as the claim only requires this structure to achieve this function.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thoman et al. (US5,595,417) in view of Weltikol et al. (US9,597,995) and further in view of Gooding (US7,131,684) and Anderson (US3,640,565).
Claim 32. Thoman in view Weltikol and further in view of Gooding teach: The tonneau cover of claim 31.
Thoman in view Weltikol and further in view of Gooding does not teach: wherein the rail assembly defines one or more detents configured to enable shifting of weight from one or more rollers operably coupled to the second panel to an edge of the tri-panel cover arrangement.
Anderson discloses a telescopic cover assembly for open bed vehicles comprising a plurality wheels and detents coupled to rails.
Anderson teaches: the rail assembly defines one or more detents (96-97 recess, Fig. 19) configured to enable shifting of weight from one or more rollers (84 wheels, Fig. 19) operably coupled to the second panel to an edge of the tri-panel cover arrangement (cover segment; Col. 10, lines 40-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the cover of Thoman in view Weltikol and further in view of Gooding by including the detents coupled to rails and the second panel as taught by Anderson with a reasonable expectation of success in order position the cover into predetermined positions as taught by Anderson (Fig. 19). Such a modification would result in shifting the weight to the edge of cover as the claim only requires this structure to achieve this function.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thoman et al. (US5,595,417) in view of Weltikol et al. (US9,597,995) and further in view of Tack et al. (US4,097,078).
Claim 14. Thoman in view Weltikol teach: The tonneau cover of claim 13.
Thoman in view of Weltikol does not teach: the striker element defines a partially cylindrical cross-section including pair of opposed flat surfaces, enabling actuation of the latch assembly over a greater range of tolerances
Tack discloses a lock assembly for an automotive vehicle comprising of a keeper and bars.
Tach teaches: the striker element defines a partially cylindrical cross-section including pair of opposed flat surfaces, enabling actuation of the latch assembly over a greater range of tolerances (138b bar is partially cylindrical and comprises of opposing flats; such a modification would result in allowing a greater range of tolerance as the claim only requires the structure to achieve this function, Fig. 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the cover of Thoman in view of Weltikol by including the latch and striker as taught by Tack with a reasonable expectation of success in order couple the cover to the vehicle as taught by Tack (Fig. 9).
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 Craig whose telephone number is (571)270-0747. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thurs 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM CST.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571)270-7741. 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.
/DANIEL T CRAIG/Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights