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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 5, paragraph 22, “FIG. 1C is a top view of structure 110B” should be changed to --FIG. 1D is a top view of structure 110B-- since FIG. 1D shows structure 110B, not FIG. 1C (which shown structure 110A).
Page 10, paragraph 46, “portal structure 110A” should be changed to --portal structure 130A--.
Page 13, paragraph 71, “cover structure 126B in an open position” should be changed to --cover structure 126A in an open position--.
Page 13, paragraph 71, “FIG. 7B is a lower perspective view of the access portal assembly 120 that has cover structures 126A-B in a closed position and includes a cargo net” should be changed to --FIG. 7C is a lower perspective view of the access portal assembly 120 that has cover structures 126A-B in a closed position and includes a cargo net--.
Page 14, paragraph 76, “portal structure 110A” should be changed to --portal structure 130A--.
Page 15, paragraph 82, “may include a latch includes a bar” should be changed to either --may include a latch that includes a bar-- or --may include a latch including a bar--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10, line 1, --wherein-- should be added before “the access portal”.
Claim 11, line 1, “the second access portal configured” should be changed to -- the second access portal is configured--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Burke (WO 2024/050148 A1).
Claim 1: Burke discloses an access portal assembly comprises: a first portal structure (88) configured to be attached to a first structure (tent 50), the first structure forming a first interior volume (67; as seen in FIG. 4); a second portal structure (196, 186) configured to be attached to a second structure (van V), the second structure forming a second interior volume; and a gasket (89; paragraph 43) coupled to a distal end of the first portal structure or the second portal structure (coupled to the end of the first portal structure 88 as seen in FIG. 10), wherein the first portal structure and the second portal structure are to interface to provide access between the first interior volume and the second interior volume (paragraph 41).
Claim 7: Burke discloses the first structure is one or more of a collapsible tent (50), retractable tent, foldable tent, or a canvas tent that has a solid bottom surface (52); the second structure is one or more of a trailer, truck bed covering, or camper shell (“trailer”, paragraph 40); and the first structure is disposed above the second structure (as seen in FIG. 30).
Claim 8: Burke discloses a first flange (158, 160) of the first portal structure is configured to be fastened to a lower wall of the first structure (via friction fit or alternatively, fasteners, such as screw/rivets or adhesive, could be used, which the flanges are configured to be used with); and a second flange (198) of the second portal structure is configured to be fastened to an upper wall of the second structure (via the friction fit between 196 and 186; paragraph 43; or alternatively, fasteners, such as screw/rivets or adhesive, could be used, which the flanges are configured to be used with).
Claim 9: Burke discloses the gasket is configured to substantially seal the interface between the first portal structure and the second portal structure (paragraph 43).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by KR patent document (KR 101898683).
KR patent document ‘683 teaches a first portal structure (31) configured to be attached to a first structure (30, 80, 90), the first structure a comprising a first interior volume (shown seen in FIG. 2, there is an interior when the tent is expanded) and a second structure (vehicle 10) comprising a second interior volume (interior of vehicle 10); and a cover structure (50) to block access between a first interior volume of the first structure and a second interior volume of the second structure, wherein the first portal structure comprises an inward protrusion (31-1) that protrudes from an inner side surface of the first portal structure (FIG. 7), wherein the cover structure is configured to be disposed on the inward protrusion responsive to the cover structure being in a closed position (“the door bracket (31) is formed with a support step (31-1) for supporting the passage cover (50)”, English translation of the specification).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burke (WO 2024/050148 A1) alone.
While Burke does not teach fasteners between the portal structures and their corresponding structure, the Examiner takes Official Notice that using fasteners to secure two objects together is old and well-known. Therefore, it would have been obvious to include one or more first fasteners configured to secure the first portal structure to the first structure and one or more second fasteners configured to secure the second portal structure to the second structure to ensure the portal structures are more secured attached to their respective structures.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burke (WO 2024/050148 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tatro (US 11,130,437 B1).
Burke lacks a cover to block access between the first and second interior volumes. Tatro teaches a first structure (collapsible shelter 1500) comprising a first interior volume (shown in FIG. 15) and a second structure (vehicle 102) comprising a second interior volume (interior of vehicle 102); and a cover structure (1506) to block access between a first interior volume of the first structure and a second interior volume of the second structure which is actuated by gas springs (1510; column 19, lines 38-54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Burke to include a cover with gas springs, such as that taught by Tatro, so that access between the first and second interior volumes could be controlled by the user but also easily kept opened/closed when not actuated by the user.
Claim(s) 3, 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burke (WO 2024/050148 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KR patent document (KR 101898683).
Burke lacks a cover to block access between the first and second interior volumes. KR patent document ‘683 teaches a first portal structure (31) configured to be attached to a first structure (30, 80, 90), the first structure a comprising a first interior volume (shown seen in FIG. 2, there is an interior when the tent is expanded) and a second structure (vehicle 10) comprising a second interior volume (interior of vehicle 10); and a cover structure (50) to block access between a first interior volume of the first structure and a second interior volume of the second structure, wherein the first portal structure comprises an inward protrusion (31-1) that protrudes from an inner side surface of the first portal structure (FIG. 7), wherein the cover structure is configured to be disposed on the inward protrusion responsive to the cover structure being in a closed position (“the door bracket (31) is formed with a support step (31-1) for supporting the passage cover (50)”, English translation of the specification). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Burke to include a cover and an inward protrusion, as taught by the KR patent document ‘683, so that the user has a way to block access to the portal when not being used, while simultaneously increasing the usable floor space of the first structure/tent.
Regarding claim 6, Burke teaches a cargo net (98), wherein the cargo net can be attached to a frame (60) via small tabs with openings (290; FIG. 27). As such, it would have been obvious to provide tabs and/or openings on any other frame members of the device that the user may desire to place a cargo net, including the first portal structure. Having openings provided directly on the inward protrusion of the first portal member would allow the user to hang a cargo net without requiring an extra piece (tab 290) which would improve the convenience provided to the user.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burke (WO 2024/050148 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Leonard (US 3,712,316).
Burke lacks the second portal structure being configured to attach to a ladder. Leonard teaches a portal structure (33) configured to be attached to a ladder (seen in FIG. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Burke to include one of the portal structures to be configured to be attached to a ladder, as suggested by Leonard, so that the user would have a secure means to climb from the second structure up into the first structure.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR patent document (KR 101898683) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Tatro (US 11,130,437 B1).
KR patent document ‘683 lacks one or more gas struts. Tatro teaches a first structure (collapsible shelter 1500) comprising a first interior volume (shown in FIG. 15) and a second structure (vehicle 102) comprising a second interior volume (interior of vehicle 102); and a cover structure (1506) to block access between a first interior volume of the first structure and a second interior volume of the second structure which is actuated by gas struts (1510; column 19, lines 38-54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KR patent document ‘683 to include a cover with gas springs, such as that taught by Tatro, so that access between the first and second interior volumes could be controlled by the user but also easily kept opened/closed when not actuated by the user.
Claim(s) 12 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burke (WO 2024/050148 A1) in view of Magnusson (US 2003/0067173 A1).
Claim 12: Burke discloses a portal structure comprising: a main body (88) configured to attach to a floor (52) of a tent (50), wherein the tent forms a first interior volume (67), the main body forming an opening to provide access into and out of the first interior volume of the tent (paragraph 41). Burke lacks one or more doors coupled to the main body via one or more hinges.
Magnusson discloses one or more doors (12) coupled to a main body (14, 15, 17) via one or more hinges (13); and an inward protrusion (18) extending from a sidewall of the main body (as seen in FIG. 1), wherein the one or more doors are to be disposed on the inward protrusion responsive the one or more doors being in the closed position (FIG. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Burke to include one or more doors connected to the main body via a hinge and an inward protrusion, such as taught by Magnusson, so that the user has a way to block access to the portal when not being used, while simultaneously increasing the usable floor space of the first structure/tent.
Claims 14 and 15: Magnusson teaches one or more locks (11) secured to the one or more doors to secure the one or more doors in the closed position (via 16 and 18, as seen in FIG. 1), wherein the one or more locks are spring-loaded latches (latch 47 controlled by spring 49) that are configured to secure to the main body to secure the one or more doors in the closed position.
Claim 16: Burke teaches a cargo net (98), wherein the cargo net can be attached to a frame (60) via small tabs with openings (290; FIG. 27). As such, it would have been obvious to provide tabs and/or openings on any other frame members of the device that the user may desire to place a cargo net, including the first portal structure. Having openings provided directly on the inward protrusion of the first portal member would allow the user to hang a cargo net without requiring an extra piece (tab 290) which would improve the convenience provided to the user.
Claim 17: Burke discloses the main body as having a first flange (158, 160) to secure to an upper surface of the floor of the tent (as seen in the right side of FIG. 12, the top surface of member 56 receives the top flange of 88) and a second flange (lower flange of groove 150, as seen in FIG. 13) to be secure to a lower surface of the floor of the tent (as seen in the right side of FIG. 12, the bottom surface of member 56 receives the lower flange of 88).
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burke (WO 2024/050148 A1) in view of Tatro (US 11,130,437 B1).
Claim 18: Burke discloses a method comprising: attaching an upper portal structure (88) to a lower wall (52) of a first structure (tent 50); attaching a lower portal structure (196, 186) to an upper wall (RT) of a second structure (van V); interfacing the upper portal structure with the lower portal structure (as shown in FIG. 12).
Burke lacks a cover to block access between the first and second interior volumes. Tatro teaches a first structure (collapsible shelter 1500) comprising a first interior volume (shown in FIG. 15) and a second structure (vehicle 102) comprising a second interior volume (interior of vehicle 102); and a cover structure (1506) to block access between a first interior volume of the first structure and a second interior volume of the second which is actuated by gas springs (1510; column 19, lines 38-54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Burke to include a cover, such as that taught by Tatro, so that access between the first and second interior volumes could be controlled.
Claim 19: Burkle discloses the first structure as being a tent (50), and the second structure as being a trailer (paragraph 40).
Claim 19: Burkle discloses the interfacing of the upper portal structure with the lower portal structure as comprising disposing the first structure on the second structure (as seen in FIG. 30).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2268. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 11AM-7PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Dunn can be reached at (571)272-6670. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DNJ/Examiner, Art Unit 3636
/DAVID R DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3636
