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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 7, 10, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 2, “a standing position” is recited in lines 5 and 7, but the limitation was introduced in claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, “a standing position” is recited in the last line, but the limitation was introduced in claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, “The” in line 3 is mistakenly capitalized.
Regarding claim 10, “The” in line 5 is mistakenly capitalized.
Regarding claim 13, “The” in line 9 is mistakenly capitalized.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: fastening mechanism in claim 1; a supporting element (13) and a supporting element (14) / the abutting element (14) in claim 2; a first sealing portion (2231) and a second sealing portion (2232) in claim 12; and locking assembly in claim 13.
Paragraph 135 of Applicant’s Specification describe the structure of fastening mechanism as “it includes a threaded fastener 241, an abutment seat 242 and a knob 243.”
Paragraph 115 of Applicant’s Specification describe the structure of supporting element (13) as “the end surface of the supporting element 13 in contact with the abutting element 14 is the supporting end surface 1301, and the supporting end surface 1301 presents an arc shape 1301a with a concave middle portion in a lateral viewing angle”; and paragraph 111 describe the structure of supporting element (14) / the abutting element (14) as “the two sides of the abutting element 14 extend outward to form side edges 1401, and a first groove 1402 is formed between the side edges 1401.”
Fig. 20 of Applicant’s Drawings shows the structure of a first sealing portion (2231) and a second sealing portion (2232) as two downward protruding portions.
Paragraph 170 of Applicant’s Specification describe the structure of locking assembly as “the locking assembly 34 is a spring.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, reference number 12 is used for both “a car body frame mechanism” in line 2 and “a carriage frame mechanism” in line 5. It is unclear if they are meant to be different parts or the same part.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the spacing" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitations "the capping system" in lines 3-4 and "the abutting element" in lines 5-6. There are insufficient antecedent bases for the limitations in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the side wall of the support element” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the end surface” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the accommodating part” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the sealing component” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitations “the unlocking assembly” in line 9 and “the locking assembly” in line 25. There are insufficient antecedent bases for the limitations in the claim.
Claims 13 and 18 recite the limitation “the lock body assembly (32) always has a movement tendency.” It is unclear how can there always be a movement tendency as parts will degrade and break down over time and therefore will not last indefinitely.
Claims 4, 6-9, 11, 14-17, and 19-20 are rejected due to their dependency on the rejected claim 1.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 7-9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu et al. (US 20210379973 A1) in view of Xu (US 11180010 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Fu discloses a truck covering system (Fu, Fig. 11, and paragraph 2 and 23), comprising: a car body frame mechanism (12) (Fu, 903 and 350 in Fig. 11-12); wherein the car body frame mechanism (12) has an open space (3711) (Fu, Fig. 11, space between 350); a covering system (11) (Fu, 201 in Fig. 11) is mounted on a carriage frame mechanism (12) (Fu, Fig. 11), the covering system (11) being composed of one or more panels (1101) (Fu, Fig. 6, multiple panels), and the covering system (11) having at least a flat position state (11a) (Fu, Fig. 6) and a standing position state (11b) (Fu, Fig. 11) relative to the carriage frame mechanism (12); a clamp mechanism (23) (Fu, Fig. 10), wherein the clamp mechanism (23) can be respectively abutted against the carriage frame mechanism (12) and the cover system (11) (Fu, paragraph 79 and Fig. 8), and a distance (21a) (Fu, Fig. 6, circle B is the clamp mechanism, there is a distance between the cover 201 and the clamp) is provided between the clamp mechanism (23) and the cover system (11); a latch mechanism (3) (Fu, Fig. 9) is attached to the cover system (11) (Fu, Fig. 6), and the latch mechanism (3) is releasably engaged (Fu, paragraph 75-76, can slide against the spring to release) with the carriage frame mechanism (12).
Fu fails to disclose configured to be mounted on a side wall of a truck car body (41); a fastening mechanism (24), the fastening mechanism (24) acting on the clamp mechanism (23) and the cover system (11) to increase or decrease the spacing (21a), thereby forming a releasable connection between the cover system (11) and the carriage frame mechanism (12).
Xu teaches configured to be mounted on a side wall of a truck car body (41) (Xu, Fig. 1 and side wall 408 in Fig. 4A); a fastening mechanism (24) (Xu, Fig. 4C, threaded fastener 486, abutment seat 490, and a knob 431), the fastening mechanism (24) acting on the clamp mechanism (23) (Xu, Fig. 4A, acting on 426 of the clamp mechanism) and the cover system (11) (Xu, Fig. 4A, act from below) to increase or decrease the spacing (21a) (Xu, Fig. 4A-4D, spacing increases and decreases as the threaded fastener rotates), thereby forming a releasable connection between the cover system (11) and the carriage frame mechanism (12) (Xu, Fig. 4A and Col. 11 lines 50-55).
Xu is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of truck covering system as Fu.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as taught by Fu to incorporate the teachings of Xu with a reasonable expectation of success and mount to the truck sidewall and use the fastening and clamp mechanism of Xu. Doing so provides anti-vibration feature (Xu, Col. 11 line 57) and creates a more secured tonneau cover with a fastening mechanism integrating with the clamp mechanism.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Fu in view of Xu teaches the truck covering system according to claim 1, characterized in that: at least one of the panels (1101) is provided with a support seat (1102) (Fu, paragraph 91, support base); The carriage frame mechanism (12) is provided with a top rod (1201) (Fu, 805 in Fig. 11), and the top rod (1201) has a hinged end (12011) (Fu, paragraph 91) and a movable end (12012) (Fu, paragraph 91, movably), the hinged end (12011) is connected (Fu, at least indirectly connected) to the carriage frame mechanism (12), and the movable end (12012) can be engaged with the support seat (1102) to keep the covering system (11) in a standing position (11b) (Fu, Fig. 11 and paragraph 91).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Fu in view of Xu teaches the truck covering system according to claim 1 is characterized in that: one of the clamp mechanism (23) and the car frame mechanism (12) has a hook (231) (Xu, see annotated Fig. 4B), and the other has a hanging groove (2221) (Xu, at 462 in Fig. 4B); the clamp mechanism (23) is operated so that the hook (231) enters the hanging groove (2221), thereby hanging the clamp mechanism (23) on the car frame mechanism (12) (Xu, see annotated Fig. 4B, hook is part of the clamp mechanism and the hanging groove is part of the frame mechanism).
PNG
media_image1.png
359
455
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 Annotated Fig. 4B from Xu
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Fu in view of Xu teaches the truck covering system according to claim 8 is characterized in that: the hook (231) includes an insertion portion (2311) and a hook portion (2312) (Xu, see annotated Fig. 4B), the hanging groove (2221) includes an opening portion (22211) (Xu, see annotated Fig. 4B) and a hanging portion (22212) (Xu, see annotated Fig. 4B, at same location occupied by hook portion), the insertion portion (2311) is correspondingly inserted into the opening portion (22211), the hook portion (2312) is correspondingly hung in the hanging portion (22212) (Xu, see annotated Fig. 4B), and the hook portion (2312) abuts against the inner wall of the hanging portion (22212) to form a limited anti-slip fit (Xu, see annotated Fig. 4B).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Fu in view of Xu teaches the truck covering system according to claim 8, characterized in that: the fastening mechanism (24) comprises a threaded fastener (241), an abutment seat (242) and a knob (243) (Xu, Fig. 4C, threaded fastener 486, abutment seat 490, and a knob 431); the clamp mechanism (23) is provided with a through hole (235) (492 in Fig. 4C), the capping system (11) is provided with a fixing hole (211) (478 in Fig. 4C), and the threaded fastener (241) passes through the through hole (235) and is screwed into the fixing hole (211) (Fig. 4D and Col. 11 lines 48-49); the abutment seat (242) is threadedly (Col. 11 lines 39-41) connected to the upper end of the threaded fastener (241) (Fig. 4A), and the abutment seat (242) can be fixedly connected to the lower end of the capping system (11) (Fig. 4A); the knob (243) is fixedly connected to the lower end of the threaded fastener (241) (Fig. 4A), and the knob (243) is operated in the tightening direction to drive the threaded fastener (241) to rotate and rise (Fig. 4A-4D, tightening the bolt into the cover panel is in the rising direction), so that the knob (243) abuts against the lower end of the clamp mechanism (23) (Fig. 4C), and the clamp mechanism (23) is close to the capping system (11) (Fig. 4A).
Claim(s) 2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Fu in view of Xu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dylewski, II et al. (US 10960745 B2).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Fu in view of Xu teaches the truck covering system according to claim 1, further comprising: a supporting element (13) (Fu, 901 in Fig. 12, see annotated Fig. 12 for the structure interpreted under 112(f)) mounted on the carriage frame mechanism (12); a supporting element (14) (Fu, 902 in Fig. 12, see annotated Fig. 12 for the structure interpreted under 112(f)) which is mounted on the capping system (11) (Fu, Fig. 12, mounted through 905), and the supporting element (14) moves along with the capping system (11) (Fu, Fig. 12, since they are connected by 905); when the covering system (11) is in a standing position state (11b), the abutting element (14) contacts the supporting element (13) (Fu, Fig. 11-12), so that the covering system (11) continuously maintains a standing position state (11b) relative to the carriage frame mechanism (12) (Fu, assists in securing the covers in the standing position; also similar teaching from Dylewski below).
PNG
media_image2.png
452
596
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 Annotated Fig. 12 from Fu
The combination of Fu in view of Xu fails to teach the groove and when the cover system (11) is in the flat position state (11a), the abutment element (14) is disengaged and separated from the support element (13).
Dylewski teaches the groove (for element 14 structure; see Dylewski annotated Fig. 34, also shown in Fig. 33), when the cover system (11) is in the flat position state (11a), the abutment element (14) is disengaged and separated from the support element (13) (Dylewski, Fig. 33), and the two elements contact so that the covering system (11) continuously maintains a standing position state (11b) relative to the carriage frame mechanism (Dylewski, Col. 16, lines 13-15).
PNG
media_image3.png
370
573
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3 Annotated Fig. 34 from Dylewski
Dylewski is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of truck covering system as Fu in view of Xu.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as taught by Fu in view of Xu to incorporate the teachings of Dylewski with a reasonable expectation of success and have a groove and disengage when in the flat position. Doing so provides a flexible structure to allow proper engagement of the buckle and the plug, and disengaging allows easier removal of the covering and/or operation of the folding panels.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Fu in view of Xu and Dylewski teaches the truck covering system according to claim 2 is characterized in that the end surface of the supporting element (13) in contact with the abutting element (14) is a supporting end surface (1301) (Fu, see annotated Fig. 12), and the supporting end surface (1301) presents an arc shape (1301a) (Fu, see annotated Fig. 12) with a concave middle portion (Fu, see annotated Fig. 12, the arc is concaved inward, one can see the concave middle portion from the side) when viewed from a side.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 6, 10, and 12-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reason for the allowance of the claims is the inclusion in the claims of the limitations directed to the support element (13) can be at least partially inserted into the first groove (1402) as claimed in claim 3; the connecting belt (16) is connected to an elastic buckle (17), and the elastic buckle (17) can be inserted into the connecting seat (15) as claimed in claim 4; the support element (13) is in the shape of a shark fin as a whole, and the support end surface (1301) is in a triangular shape (1301b) from a main side perspective as claimed in claim 6; the clamp mechanism (23) is in a "C" shape as a whole, the clamp mechanism (23) has a first arm (232) on the left side and a second arm (233) on the right side, and a receiving portion is formed between the first arm (232) and the second arm (233); The clamp mechanism (23) also has a protrusion (234), and the protrusion (234) divides the accommodating part into a first accommodating part (23 a) and a second accommodating part (23b); the hook (231) and the carriage frame mechanism (12) are correspondingly arranged in the first accommodating part (23 a), and the fastening mechanism (24) is correspondingly arranged in the second accommodating part (23b) as claimed in claim 10; the carriage side rail (221) and the lateral frame (222) are detachably engaged; the carriage side rail (221) is provided with a first sealing groove (2211), the lateral frame (222) is provided with a second sealing groove (2222), the lower end of the sealing member (223) has a first sealing portion (2231) and a second sealing portion (2232), the first sealing portion (2231) is embedded in the first sealing groove (2211), and the second sealing portion (2232) is embedded in the second sealing groove (2222) as claimed in claim 12; and the rope (33) passes through the unlocking transmission element (351), and the unlocking transmission element (351) has one or more columns (3511), and the columns (3511) can abut against the rope (33) and pull the rope (33) as claimed in claim 13. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claims, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record.
The closest prior art is Fu, which discloses a supporting element 901 in Fig. 12, but fails to disclose that the element 901 is at least partially inserted into a groove of the abutment element as required by claim 3. Fu also discloses an elastic buckle 902 in Fig. 12 as required by claim 4, but the elastic buckle 902 of Fu is mapped to the abutment element or supporting element (14) in claim 2. It is improper to map the same part to different claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 10, reference Xu teaches C-shape parts 450/446 but the clamp mechanism does not have a C-shape as a whole. Regarding claim 12, Xu teaches the carriage frame mechanism (12) comprises a carriage side rail (221) (Fig. 13, rail of 350) and a lateral frame (222) (903 in Fig. 12), and a sealing member (223) (351 in Fig. 16); but fails to teach the carriage side rail (221) and the lateral frame (222) are detachably engaged; the lateral frame (222) is provided with a second sealing groove (2222) and the second sealing portion (2232) is embedded in the second sealing groove (2222).
Regarding claim 13, Williamson et al. (US 20190001800 A1) teaches a latch using ropes, but fails to teach the rope (33) passes through the unlocking transmission element (351), and the unlocking transmission element (351) has one or more columns (3511), and the columns (3511) can abut against the rope (33) and pull the rope (33).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references that are not relied upon all disclose truck tonneau covers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wenwei Zhuo whose telephone number is (571)272-5564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. 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, 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.
/WENWEI ZHUO/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights