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 § 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 1-16 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.
With Respect to Claim 1
The scope of the phrases “said first container guide and said second container guide defining a width limit for said storage container” and “said adjustable mounting bar defining a rear positioning limit for said storage container” are unclear, noting for example that the container guides could fit into a recess of a storage container such that the storage container has a width extending beyond the width defined by the container guides (i.e. they do not completely encompass the container to limit the maximum width of the container), and the adjustable mounting bar similarly does not prevent a container being mounted that has portions extending behind the container and so does not appear to define a limit to the location of the container. Additionally, the phrase “rear positioning limit” is unclear as to whether it refers to a position of the rear of the container, if the term “rear” refers to the rear direction of the vehicle and the phrase limits the positioning of the container in that direction, if it can refer to any given direction as no other directionality is referred to for any of the parts of the claim, if it has some other scope.
The remainder of this office action is based on the invention as best understood by Examiner.
With Respect to Claim 15
The scope of the claim is unclear, noting that the normal/broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase would not further limit the parent claim (see the rejection below for details) but arguably it could be interpreted more narrowly so as to further limit the parent claim, but if so it is unclear how much more narrowly it should be interpreted.
The remainder of this office action is based on the invention as best understood by Examiner.
With Respect to Claims 2-16
These claims are rejected as they depend from a rejected claim and so incorporate its indefinite scope.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 15 merely recites “fastening locations” at ends of a bar, and inherently the ends of all bars have locations/points at which objects could be fastened (e.g. via adhesive, tying the object around that end, etc) and so it appears that any bar would inherently meet this limitation and so the claim fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 9-12, and 14-16 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); a second bar mount (240L’) extending from a second of said supports (FIG. 3); 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, said first container guide and said second container guide defining a width limit for said storage container; said adjustable mounting bar defining a rear positioning limit for 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.
For clarity, it is Examiner’s position that said first container guide and said second container guide defining a width limit for said storage container at least to the same degree as the inventive guides, and said adjustable mounting bar defines a rear positioning limit for said storage container as the container mounting point is furthest rearward in the vehicle based on the location of the rear end of the adjustable mounting bar and/or is mounted furthest to the rear of the container (e.g. to the interior of the truck) based on the location of the mounting structure located on the adjustable mounting bar), and/or to the same degree as the invention to the best of Examiner’s understanding of the unclear claim language.
With Respect to Claim 2
The truck bed rack system of Claim 1, further comprising a first stiffener (noting the disclosure to add a reinforcing plate such as 320 to any of the various joints of the system in or der 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 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.
With Respect to Claim 3
The truck bed rack system of Claim 2, further comprising 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)).
With Respect to Claim 4
The truck bed rack system of Claim 3, 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 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 15
The truck bed rack system of Claim 14, further comprising one or more fastening locations (e.g. 430 forms a fastening location, or alternately 420 along the side is a fastening location as an object could be glued there, or any point along the outside of the bar adjacent the channel is a fastening location as an object tied around the bar would be fastened there or an object could be attached via adhesive or the like) at ends of said adjustable mounting bar.
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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 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.
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