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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 9-12, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #11,987,295 to Reyes (Reyes) in view of U.S. Patent Publication #2019/0315519 to Brennan (Brennan).
With Respect to Claim 1
Reyes discloses a truck bed rack system, comprising: a first support (210L) configured to be mounted along one side of a truck bed (capable of this use which is also the intended use, see e.g. FIG. 1 and description); a second support (250L) configured to be mounted along said one side of the truck bed and spaced from said first support (capable of this use which is also the intended use, see e.g. FIG. 1 and description); a third support (210R) configured to be mounted along a second side of said truck bed (capable of this use which is also the intended use, see e.g. FIG. 1 and description); a fourth support (250R) configured to be mounted along said second side of said truck bed (capable of this use which is also the intended use, see e.g. FIG. 1 and description); a first cross-member (220F)) extending between said first support and said third support; a second cross-member (220R) extending between said second support and said fourth support; a first bar mount (210L’, FIG. 3) extending from one of said supports (FIG. 3) and a first stiffener (noting the disclosure to add a reinforcing plate such as 320 to any of the various joints of the system in order to withstand greater loads and forces as well as provide further utility, Col. 6 lines 17-30) extending between said first support and said first bar mount (it is Examiner’s position that the disclosure to use the plates on one or more of the various joint of the system inherently indicates use on any given joint with appropriate modification for the shape of the joint, or alternately to the degree that such is not explicitly stated using it on the claimed joint is obvious to obtain the benefits of the plate on that joint, and also using a plate there in addition to other joints constitutes a mere duplication of parts which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04) (for clarity, modifying the plate to suit the particular shape of the joint is obvious as mere routing optimization and/or basic mechanical modification to have a part suit its desired function); a second bar mount (240L’) extending from a second of said supports (FIG. 3) and a second stiffener extending between said second support and said second bar mount (obvious for similar reasons to the first, and/or constitutes a mere duplication of parts which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04)); an adjustable mounting bar (230L’) extending between said first bar mount (210L’) and said second bar mount (240L’); and that the adjustable mounting bar can be used to attach any of numerous accessories to the rack including containers (e.g. toolboxes); but does not disclose a first container guide connected to said adjustable mounting bar and a second container guide connected to said adjustable mounting bar, said second container guide spaced from said first container guide and configured to receive a storage container between said first container guide and said second container guide, said first container guide capable of engaging a first side of said storage container and said second container guide capable of engaging a second side of said storage container; said adjustable mounting bar capable of engaging a third side of said storage container.
However, Brennan discloses attaching a storage container to a vehicle truck bed using a pair of brackets (114 alone or in combination with 108/148) attached to a base (102) which is a bar. It is noted that Brennan discloses adjustable mounting of the brackets to the base in [0019].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Brennan, to use a pair of mounting brackets as taught by Brennan to attach a container as taught by Brennan to the adjustable mounting bar, in order to attach the container of Brennan to the pickup truck bed/rack of Reyes and/or as a mere selection of an art appropriate accessory to attach to the Brennan rack. For clarity, the combination encompasses any suitable attachment mechanism to secure the parts together, for example replacing the screws of Brennan with an anchor including a screw as taught by Reyes or modifying the Brennan screws so as to form anchors like that of Reyes.
With Respect to Claim 4
The truck bed rack system of Claim 1, each of said first bar mount and said second bar mount being generally triangular in shape (they are shown with substantially trapezoidal sizes which are truncated triangles and so generally triangular to at least the same degree as the invention/to the extent claimed, noting also that the inventive bar mounts as shown in the drawings similarly resemble trapezoids as they lack one of the three points of the triangle).
With Respect to Claim 6
The truck bed rack system of Claim 1, said first stiffener and said first bar mount connected at ends spaced from said first support (see, e.g. FIG. 3 and stiffener of FIG. 4A, noting that the end of 20L’ is spaced from the first support via 310 and so the connection between the first stiffener and first bar mount will be at an end of the stiffener and an end of the bar mount that are both spaced from the first support).
Alternately, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to use a shorter first bar mount (210L’) than that shown, and with a sufficiently short first bar mount the end of the stiffener opposite the first support will then connect to the end of the first bar mount opposite the first support, in order to provide a shorter column to reduce wind resistance, save on costs, and/or as doing so constitutes at most a mere change in size/proportion which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A))..
With Respect to Claim 9
The truck bed rack system of Claim 1, further comprising a first storage clamp and a second storage clamp retaining said storage container (108 and 148 on each side per Reyes are storage clamps as claimed).
With Respect to Claim 10
The truck bed rack system of Claim 9, said first storage clamp and said second storage clamp attached to said first container guide and said second container guide, respectively (per Reyes).
With Respect to Claim 11
The truck bed rack system of Claim 9, said first storage clamp and said second storage clamp connected to said storage container and said first container guide and said second container guide (see, e.g. FIGS. 1 and 3).
With Respect to Claim 12
The truck bed rack system of Claim 1, said first support and said second support being angled relative to a vertical reference (see, e.g. Reyes FIG. 2 showing side plates angled relative to a vertical reference plane through the central plate, and/or the bottom of the bracket is angled substantially perpendicular relative to a vertical reference).
With Respect to Claim 14
The truck bed rack system of Claim 1, further comprising one or more holes or grooves (channels 410) positioned axially along said adjustable mounting bar and configured to receive fasteners (capable of this use which is also the intended use, see e.g. FIG. 10).
With Respect to Claim 16
The truck bed rack system of Claim 1, further wherein the truck bed rack system is secured either to factory fixing points in the truck bed or factory rails of the truck bed (it is disclosed as attached to the rail which also constitute fixing points in the truck bed, and being made in a factory does not result in a structural difference this disclosure inherently includes attachment to factory fixing points in/rails of the truck bed; alternately to the degree that some other construction method might be used that would result in a structural difference, using factory fixing points/rails formed is clearly obvious as a mere selection of an art appropriate fixing point/rail method of formation and/or for the art known benefits of this formation method).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #11,987,295 to Reyes (Reyes) in view of U.S. Patent Publication #2019/0315519 to Brennan (Brennan) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent #11,325,664 to Hanson (Hanson) and/or U.S. Patent #11,577,637 to Petty (Petty).
With Respect to Claim 12
As an alternative to the rejection of claim 12 above using Reyes in view of Brennan alone,
Hanson discloses attaching an item to a similar roof rack such that the attachment point/portion of the item is at an angle to the vertical, e.g. substantially parallel to the angle of the side of the rack (see FIG. 9-10A); Petty discloses attaching a container to a similar truck rack such that the container attachment location is angled relative to the vertical (see FIG. 6 showing side rack sides angled relative to the vertical and a bracket attaching the container opening/lid at an angle substantially parallel to this angle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Hanson and/or Petty, to modify the adjustable bar and/or first and second bar mounts to secure the container at an angle to the vertical, in order to have the opening of the container angled for easier access while still attached, to hold a container having a shape like that of Petty or other shapes that differ from the shape of Brennan, and/or as doing so constitutes at most a mere change in shape which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (i.e. it merely changes the shape of the joints of the bar mounts to extend at a different angle or changes the overall shape of the rack with attached adjustable bar) (MPEP 2144.04) or a mere rearrangement of parts which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (i.e. it merely rearranges the angle of the bar mounts and/or adjustment bar, e.g. by rotating the adjustment bar)(MPEP 2144.04)
With Respect to Claim 13
The truck bed rack system of Claim 1, said storage container being mounted in an angled configuration so that a lid of said storage container is either aligned or is parallel with a plane extending between said first and second supports (locating it parallel to the plane extending between the first and second supports is obvious per Hanson and/or Petty as both disclose attachment at this angle).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #11,987,295 to Reyes (Reyes) in view of U.S. Patent Publication #2019/0315519 to Brennan (Brennan), either alone or further in view of U.S. Patent #5,470,120 to Christensen (Christensen).
With Respect to Claim 17
Reyes discloses a truck bed rack system, comprising: a first support (210L) configured to be mounted along one side of a truck bed (capable of this use which is also the intended use, see e.g. FIG. 1 and description); a second support (250L) configured to be mounted along said one side of the truck bed and spaced from said first support (capable of this use which is also the intended use, see e.g. FIG. 1 and description); a third support (210R) configured to be mounted along a second side of said truck bed (capable of this use which is also the intended use, see e.g. FIG. 1 and description); a fourth support (250R) configured to be mounted along said second side of said truck bed (capable of this use which is also the intended use, see e.g. FIG. 1 and description); a first cross-member (220F)) extending between said first support and said third support; a second cross-member (220R) extending between said second support and said fourth support; a first bar mount (210L’, FIG. 3) extending from one of said supports; a second bar mount (240L’) extending from a second of said supports; an adjustable mounting bar (230L’) extending between said first bar mount and said second bar mount; said adjustable mounting bar supported at a first end by said first bar mount and a stiffener (noting the disclosure to add a reinforcing plate such as 320 to any of the various joints of the system in order to withstand greater loads and forces as well as provide further utility, Col. 6 lines 17-30, it is Examiner’s position that this inherently discloses locating a reinforcing plate similar to 320 between the first bar mount and the first support for this purpose or alternately clearly renders such obvious), and supported at a second end by said second bar mount and a second stiffener (obvious for similar reasons to the first, and/or constitutes a mere duplication of parts which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04)); and discloses support structures extending towards the interior of the truck bed (noting e.g. 390, 395, FIG. 8); but does not disclose that the first bar mount and second bar mount extend inwardly in a direction toward said truck bed or that the adjustable mounting bar is positioned inwardly of a plane defined between said first and second supports; and also does not disclose a first container guide connected to said adjustable mounting bar and a second container guide connected to said adjustable mounting bar, said second container guide spaced from said first container guide and configured to receive a storage container between said first container guide and said second container guide, said first container guide capable of engaging a first side of said storage container and said second container guide capable of engaging a second side of said storage container.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Reyes of the same anchor points/slide tracks on the interior side of the first and second supports, and that the structure is intended to be modular and user-reconfigurable, to attach the first bar mount and second bar mount so as to extend inwardly in a direction toward said truck bed such that the adjustable mounting bar is positioned inwardly of a plane defined between said first and second supports, in order to secure objects in position on the interior portion of the rack, and/or as doing so constitutes at most a mere rearrangement of parts which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04).
Alternately, Christensen discloses forming a similar truck bed attached rack with similar supports and crossbars and inwardly extending bar mounts/supports attached on the interior of the rack and a mounting bar (81 and related structure) to support various accessories such as tool boxes or mounting connectors, which provides additional/sufficient motivation for and/or evidence of the obviousness of having the first and second bar mounts and adjustable mounting be positioned inwardly of the first support/rack structure as claimed.
Brennan discloses attaching a storage container to a vehicle truck bed using a pair of brackets (114 alone or in combination with 108/148) attached to a base (102) which is a bar. It is noted that Brennan discloses adjustable mounting of the brackets to the base in [0019].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Brennan, to use a pair of mounting brackets as taught by Brennan to attach a container as taught by Brennan to the adjustable mounting bar, in order to attach the container of Brennan to the pickup truck bed/rack of Reyes and/or as a mere selection of an art appropriate accessory to attach to the Brennan rack. For clarity, the combination encompasses any suitable attachment mechanism to secure the parts together, for example replacing the screws of Brennan with an anchor including a screw as taught by Reyes or modifying the Brennan screws so as to form anchors like that of Reyes.
With Respect to Claim 18
A truck bed rack system, comprising: a first support (210L) configured to be mounted along one side of a truck bed (capable of this use which is also the intended use, see e.g. FIG. 1 and description); a second support (250L) configured to be mounted along said one side of the truck bed and spaced from said first support (capable of this use which is also the intended use, see e.g. FIG. 1 and description); a third support (210R) configured to be mounted along a second side of said truck bed (capable of this use which is also the intended use, see e.g. FIG. 1 and description); a fourth support (250R) configured to be mounted along said second side of said truck bed (capable of this use which is also the intended use, see e.g. FIG. 1 and description); a first cross-member (220F) extending between said first support and said third support; a second cross-member (220R) extending between said second support and said fourth support; a first bar mount (210L’, FIG. 3) extending inwardly from one of said supports in a direction toward said truck bed; a second bar mount extending inwardly from a second of said supports in a direction toward said truck bed (per obvious rearrangement of parts or Christensen, see the rejection of claim 17 above for details); an adjustable mounting bar (230L’) extending between said first bar mount (210L’) and said second bar mount (240L’), said adjustable mounting bar spaced inwardly of a plane defined between said first and second supports (per obvious rearrangement of parts or Christensen); and, a first container guide (either 114 alone or in combination with 108/148, per Brennan) connected to said adjustable mounting bar and a second container guide (the other 114 alone or in combination with 108/148, per Brennan) connected to said adjustable mounting bar, said second container guide spaced from said first container guide and configured to receive a storage container between said first container guide and said second container guide (per Brennan), said first container guide and said second container guide moveable relative to said adjustable mounting bar to various positions said first container guide capable of engaging a first side of said storage container and said second container guide capable of engaging a second side of said storage container (per the adjustability of the Reyes structure as well as Brennan’s disclosure of such adjustability); said adjustable mounting bar supported at a first end from said first support by said first bar mount and a stiffener, and supported at a second end from said second support by said second bar mount and a second stiffener (noting the disclosure to add a reinforcing plate such as 320 to any of the various joints of the system in order to withstand greater loads and forces as well as provide further utility, Col. 6 lines 17-30, it is Examiner’s position that this inherently discloses locating a reinforcing plate/stiffener similar to 320 in both locations, or alternately clearly renders such obvious).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/6/26 have been fully considered but they are largely either not persuasive or are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
It is noted that Applicant’s arguments that the amendments obviate the 112 rejections are persuasive and as those are no longer present will not be further addressed.
In response to Applicant’s arguments regarding the amended claims, the amendment to claim 1 added the subject matter of intervening claims 2 and 3, but does not include the indicated allowable subject matter of previous claim 5.
In response to Applicant’s arguments regarding the new claims, see the rejection of those claims above for details of how the prior art discloses or renders their subject matter obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 ADAM J WAGGENSPACK whose telephone number is (571)270-7418. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at (571)272-4544. 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.
/ADAM J WAGGENSPACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights