DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 44. 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. 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 16-19, 21, 23-25, 27-29, 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hornig (EP 3 293 027 A1) in view of Raad (NL 2007539 C2) and Pastva (US 4,943,110).
Regarding claims 16 and 24, Hornig discloses an openable side tarpaulin wall system for a utility vehicle (Fig. 1), comprising: at least one sliding stanchion (9) with a stanchion suspension device (see annotated Fig. below) which is displaceable along a first chamber (see annotated Fig. below) of a longitudinal beam (see annotated Fig. below), wherein said longitudinal beam is supported against a loading platform (10) of the utility vehicle, and a tarpaulin (4) closing a lateral opening of the utility vehicle (Fig. 1), wherein said tarpaulin is suspended via tarpaulin suspension devices (see annotated Fig. below), wherein the tarpaulin suspension devices are displaceable along a second chamber (see annotated Fig. below) of the longitudinal beam.
PNG
media_image1.png
762
848
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hornig does not disclose that the stanchion suspension device comprises at least two twin load-bearing rollers, wherein the stanchion suspension device comprises a guide roller outside each of the twin load-bearing rollers in the direction of travel, wherein said guide rollers and said twin load-bearing rollers are arranged in the first chamber of the longitudinal beam, wherein the sliding stanchion comprises a sliding-stanchion carriage at an end opposite the stanchion suspension device, wherein the sliding stanchion is displaceable via said sliding-stanchion carriage with respect to a guide rail assigned to the loading platform, wherein the tarpaulin comprises tarpaulin carriages at an end opposite the tarpaulin suspension devices, with which tarpaulin carriages the tarpaulin segment is displaceable with respect to said guide rail assigned to the loading platform.
Raad discloses a utility vehicle moving wall suspension device which includes at least two twin load-bearing rollers (36/34, 65/66), wherein the suspension device comprises a guide roller (61,62) outside each of the twin load-bearing rollers in the direction of travel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to use the suspension device of Raad as the stanchion suspension device in which said guide rollers and said twin load-bearing rollers are arranged in the first chamber of the longitudinal beam. The rationale would have been that it is a known suspension device for a utility vehicle panel.
Pastva discloses a utility vehicle with a tarpaulin side with sliding stanchions which have an upper carriages (Fig. 3) and lower carriages (Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include lower carriages with the openable wall system of Hornig for the stanchions and the tarpaulin members. The motivation would have been to ensure that the lower end of the stanchion and tarpaulin would be secured.
Regarding claim 24, Pastva further discloses that wherein the sliding carriages each have at least one load-bearing roller (42’) arranged above the guide rail and at least one counter roller (42) arranged below the guide rail.
Regarding claim 32, Raad further discloses that the stanchion suspension device comprises a leading guide roller (61) and a trailing guide roller (62), each of said leading and trailing guide rollers having a vertical axis (56/57) of rotation and being arranged in said first chamber, wherein the leading guide roller is arranged before said plurality of load-bearing twin rollers I63/64,65/66) of the stanchion suspension device in a direction of travel of the stanchion suspension device, wherein the trailing guide roller (62) is arranged behind said plurality of load-bearing twin rollers of the stanchion suspension device in a direction of travel of the stanchion suspension device.
Regarding claim 17, Hornig as modified discloses the openable side tarpaulin wall system according to claim 16. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the tarpaulin carriages and the sliding-stanchion carriages be displaceable on the same guide rail.
Regarding claim 18, Hornig as modified discloses the openable side tarpaulin wall system according to claim 16. Pastva further discloses that wherein the sliding carriages each have at least one load-bearing roller (42’) arranged above the guide rail and at least one counter roller (42) arranged below the guide rail.
Regarding claims 19 and 25, Hornig as modified discloses the openable side tarpaulin wall system according to claims 18 and 24. Pastva further discloses that the load bearing rollers (42’) and the counter rollers (42) comprise a central running surface (43) being in contact with a narrow side of the guide rail (Fig. 5), and wherein said load-bearing rollers and said counter- rollers are provided with a radially projecting collar on both sides of the running surface, which can be brought into contact with a broad side of the guide rail in order to absorb horizontal forces (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 21, Hornig as modified discloses the openable side tarpaulin wall system according to claim 16. Hornig further discloses that the first chamber is spaced apart from the second chamber. See annotated Fig 2A above.
Regarding claims 23 and 35, Hornig as modified discloses the openable side tarpaulin wall system according to claims 16 and 32. Hornig further discloses that the outer wall of the longitudinal beam is arranged above the first chamber of the longitudinal beam. Hornig does not disclose that the tarpaulin suspension device comprises a guide roller, wherein said guide roller is supported against an outer wall of the longitudinal beam. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to look to the teachings of the Raad suspension device to add a guide roller. The rationale would have been that it is a known element of a suspension device for supporting the suspension device while rolling in the chamber of the beam.
Regarding claim 27, Hornig as modified discloses the sliding stanchion according to claim 24. Raad further discloses that the guide roller is arranged below an upper edge of the twin load-bearing rollers and above a lower edge of the twin load-bearing rollers (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 28, Hornig as modified discloses the sliding stanchion according to claim 24. Raad further discloses that the twin load-bearing rollers each have a horizontal axis of rotation and wherein the guide rollers each have a vertical axis of rotation (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 29, Hornig as modified discloses the sliding stanchion according to claim 24. Raad further discloses that an outer diameter of the guide roller projects beyond a width of the twin load-bearing rollers (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 27, Hornig as modified discloses the sliding stanchion according to claim 24. Raad further discloses that the guide rollers of said stanchion suspension device are arranged flush with each other (Fig. 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20, 22, 26, 30 and 33-35 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 PATRICIA L ENGLE whose telephone number is (571)272-6660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 7:30 am-4 pm.
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, Fenn Matthew can be reached at 571-272-4978. 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.
/PATRICIA L ENGLE/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3993
Prosecution Insights