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 Objections
Claims 1, 3-5, and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: they include improper capitalization in the body of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the T rod (for clarity, the drawings show only a threaded bolt and so do not show it as a T rod) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With Respect to Claim 8
Although the specification generally discloses the use a T rod and plum nut, it does not provide sufficient detail as to how these parts operate mechanically to accomplish the described functions. As such, this subject matter was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With Respect to Claim 9
Although the specification discloses that the lower side of the cover has a plate groove 401 for connecting a wrench groove 402 via glue, the wrench groove used for connecting the wrench locking system, no details are provided as to what these structures are, how they are related to wrenches (i.e. it is unclear how the groove constitutes a “wrench groove”), and it is unclear what the “wrench locking system” is or how it operates. As such, this subject matter was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
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 1-10 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 Claims 1-3 and 6
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “lifting hook” in claims 1-3 and 6 is used by the claim to refer to a bracket/handle that is a closed loop (the specific scope and meaning of the term is unclear) while the accepted meaning is “a curved or bent device for catching, holding, or pulling”. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
With Respect to Claims 1-5
The preamble of these claims indicates that it is for an anti-detachment hook structure for a car cover, which recites the car cover only functionally (and does not necessarily include the car), but the body of the claim uses language that recites the car and/or car cover using phrases that are not clearly functional (e.g. “is connected to the car body or side rails”). It is unclear whether the limitations in the body of the claim should be taken to structurally recite the car cover and/or car body, or to merely functionally recite them (e.g. to further define the functionality of the device).
For the purposes of examination on the merits, Examiner takes these claims to structurally recite the car cover and car body as the broadest reasonable interpretation of the unclear claim language, noting that the claim language in the body of the claim is not functional.
With Respect to Claim 2
The claim recites “a secure buckle (102)” twice, which is indefinite. It is unclear whether this requires two separate secure buckles, or if the second recitation is a typo and should be “the secure buckle (102)”.
The remainder of this office action is based on the invention as best understood by Examiner.
With Respect to Claim 4
It recites the limitation "the side rails". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether this is meant to refer to the previously recited “a side rail”, if it refers to some other structure, if it should indicate that the previously recited “a side rail” should be multiple side rails, or if it has some other meaning.
The remainder of this office action is based on the invention as best understood by Examiner.
With Respect to Claims 5 and 7
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “side rail clamp” in claims 5 and 7 is used by the claim to mean a bracket/handle that is a closed loop (the specific scope and meaning of the term is unclear) while the accepted meaning is “a device designed to bind or constrict or to press two or more parts together so as to hold them firmly” (CLAMP Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster, retrieved 6/9/26). The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
With Respect to Claim 9
It recites the limitation " the wrench locking system". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether this is meant to refer to the previously recited “a side rail”, if it refers to some other structure, if it should indicate that the previously recited “a side rail” should be multiple side rails, or if it has some other meaning.
Additionally, it is unclear what the scope of the limitations of this claim are, e.g. what constitutes a “wrench groove”. Additionally, the parts shown appear to be the parts that include the groove, rather than the groove, as the groove portion of 402 is not shown attached to the groove portion of 401 (to the best of Examiner’s understanding, it appears that the plate which includes the groove 401 is glued to the groove 402).
It is unclear whether the claim structurally or only functionally recites the wrench groove, glue, and/or wrench locking system, noting that the phrase “is used for” appears to be a statement of intended use which would make it functional, but arguably might also indicate the use it is currently being put to.
The remainder of this office action is based on the invention as best understood by Examiner.
With Respect to Claims 6-10
These claims are rejected as they depend from a rejected claim and so incorporate its indefinite scope.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent #12,533,935 to Dylewski (Dylewski). Dylewski discloses:
With Respect to Claim 1
An anti-detachment hook structure for a car cover, wherein, it includes a secure clamp (72, alone or in combination with 68 and/or 66 and related structure) and a lifting hook (70); One end of the secure clamp (44 alone or in combination with 38) is connected to the car body or side rails (noting connection to side rails 28 or 30 and/or sidewall 6 or 8), the other end of the secure clamp (48 or 82 or other equivalent structure) is connected to the car cover of the car by the lifting hook (78, noting direct connection of 66 or connection via 66 and/or 68).
With Respect to Claim 2
An anti-detachment hook structure for a car cover according to claim 1, wherein, the secure clamp (72, 66, 68) includes a secure belt (66), a secure buckle (68) and a clamp assembly (72), the clamp assembly is connected to the car body or the side rails (noting it clamps to the side rail 28 or 30 and/or sidewall 6 or 8), the clamp assembly is connected to a secure buckle (68), the secure buckle (68) is connected to the lifting hook (70) by the secure belt (66) (see, e.g. FIG. 8).
With Respect to Claim 3
An anti-detachment hook structure for a car cover, wherein, it includes a secure clamp (72, 66, 68), a lifting hook (70) and a retrofitting bar (30); The lifting hook (70) is connected to the car cover; The retrofitting bar (30) is provided with a retrofitting bar groove (42) ; The secure clamp (72, 66, 68) includes a secure belt (66), a secure buckle (62) and a clamp assembly (72), the clamp assembly is connected to the retrofitting bar groove (42), one end of the secure belt (66) is connected to the car cover of the vehicle through the lifting hook (70), the other end of the secure belt (66) is connected to the clamp assembly through the secure buckle (68) (see, e.g. FIG. 8).
With Respect to Claim 4
An anti-detachment hook structure for a car cover, wherein, it includes a secure clamp (72, 66, 68), a side rail (28 or 30, noting rail that track insert 94 extends into) and an intermediate support bar (70); The intermediate support bar (70) is connected to the car cover; The secure clamp (72, 66, 68) includes a secure belt (66), a secure buckle (68) and a clamp assembly (72), the clamp assembly is connected to the side rails (28 or 30), one end of the secure belt (66) is connected to the intermediate support bar (70), the other end of the secure belt (66) is connected to the clamp assembly through the secure buckle (68) (see e.g. FIG. 8).
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 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #12,533,935 to Dylewski (Dylewski) in view of U.S. Patent Publication #2022/0219516 to Schmeichel (Schmeichel).
With Respect to Claim 5
Dylewski discloses an anti-detachment hook structure for a car cover, wherein, it includes a secure clamp (72, 66, 68); a side rail (28 or 30), a side rail clamp (70); The secure clamp (72, 66, 68) includes a secure belt (66), a secure buckle (68) and a clamp assembly (72), the clamp assembly is connected to the side rail (), one end of the secure belt (66) is connected to the side rail clamp (70), the other end of the secure belt (66) is connected to the clamp assembly by a secure buckle (68); but does not disclose a side rail system that includes a side rail groove and the side rail clamp (70), the side rail clamp (70) is connected to the side rail groove.
However, Schmeichel discloses forming a similar tether/secure belt between a side rail attachment structure (e.g. 525b) and a side rail system including a side rail groove (groove/channel of 550e) and a side rail clamp (582) connected to the side rail groove (groove/channel of 550e, see FIG. 2G and [0157]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Schmeichel, to form the structure of Dylewski with a side rail system comprising a side rail groove (e.g. 550e) and the side rail clamp (582 or 70 with an additional attachment to mate with the groove) in order to allow for adjustment and/or removal of the side rail clamp, to allow for attachment of other structures to the side rail groove, as a mere substitution of one art known tether/strap attachment structure for another, and/or as doing so constitutes at most merely making adjustable which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04).
With Respect to Claim 7
An anti-detachment hook structure for a car cover according to claim 5, wherein, the side rail clamp (70 per Dylewski as modified or alternately 582 per Schmeichel) is provided with a side rail clamp protrusion (either of the side portion of 70 extending from the bar portion that 66 wraps around or the left and right portions of the ring of Schmeichel) and a side rail clamp opening (opening that 66 passes through), the side rail clamp protrusion (side portions of 70 or ring portion of 582) is connected to the side rail groove (as to the Dylewski structure, it is Examiner’s position that this is obvious, noting that the similar side portions of Schmeichel also attach in this fashion or alternately Schmeichel’s portions attach via attached portion of 582, see FIG. 2G), the secure belt (66) is connected to the side rail clamp opening (Dylewski FIG. 8, as to the combination obvious per Dylewski’s disclosure to attach it in this fashion).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #12,533,935 to Dylewski (Dylewski) as applied to any one of claims 1-4 above or U.S. Patent #12,533,935 to Dylewski (Dylewski) in view of U.S. Patent Publication #2022/0219516 to Schmeichel (Schmeichel) as applied to claim 5 above.
With Respect to Claim 6
An anti-detachment hook structure for a car cover according to any one of claims 1-5 (for clarity, this portion of the rejection relates to claim 6 depending from any of claims 1-4), wherein, the clamp assembly includes a left clamp (38) and a right clamp (44), the left clamp (38) and the right clamp (44) are connected by screws (54, 56, see e.g. FIG. 7), the left clamp (38) is provided with a left clamp fixing port (noting e.g. 48 in FIGS. 7-8, 80 in FIG. 9, or equivalent in other embodiments), the secure buckle (68) is connected to the left clamp fixing port (48/80/etc.), but does not disclose materials for the parts and so does not disclose that both the secure buckle (68) and the lifting hook (70) are made of metal or high strength plastic.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to form the secure buckle and lifting hook out of metal or high strength plastic, for the art known benefits of a given metal or high strength plastic, to provide a suitably strong attachment/securement structure, as a mere selection of an art appropriate material to use, and/or as it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #12,533,935 to Dylewski (Dylewski) as applied to any one of claims 1-4 above or U.S. Patent #12,533,935 to Dylewski (Dylewski) in view of U.S. Patent Publication #2022/0219516 to Schmeichel (Schmeichel) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent #12/502,940 to Wang (Wang).
With Respect to Claim 8
An anti-detachment hook structure for a car cover according to claim 6, but does not disclose wherein, the secure clamp further includes a T-rod and a plum nut, the T-rod passes through the left clamp and the right clamp, the plum nut threads into the T-rod.
However, Wang discloses forming a similar sidewall clamp for a tonneau cover wherein the secure clamp includes a T-rod and a plum nut (see, e.g. FIGS. 7 and 13), the T-rod passes through the left clamp and the right clamp (FIG. 13 shows an opening in the base of the bottom clamp and it must also pass through the other clamp due to the t-shaped top, although the opening is not explicitly shown), the plum nut threads into the T-rod (FIG. 7 and 13), and that this provides a stable and removable attachment to the vehicle/rail.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Wang, to replace the clamp of Dylewski/the combination with a clamp like that of Wang, as a mere substitution of one art known clamping structure for another.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #12,533,935 to Dylewski (Dylewski) as applied to claim 1 above, either alone or further in view of U.S. Patent Publication #2022/0219516 to Schmeichel (Schmeichel).
With Respect to Claim 9
An anti-detachment hook structure for a car cover according to claim 1, wherein, the car cover includes a plurality of plate bodies (noting panel sections); The lower side of the car cover is provided with a plate groove (see e.g. FIGS. 17 and 23 showing grooves in the bottom of the plate bodies), the plate groove is used for connecting a wrench groove (capable of this use), the wrench groove is connected to the plate groove by glue (capable of this use as glue could be used to attach an appropriate plate groove to the wrench groove); The wrench groove is used for connecting the wrench locking system (capable of this use).
Alternately, Schmeichel discloses the use of adhesive/glue to attach support bows (550) to a similar car cover to provide a bend/curvature to the central portion of the panel, strengthen as well as provide attachment locations for parts (e.g. 582, FIG. 2G), and that the support bows are attached via adhesive ([0147]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Schmeichel, to add support bows to the underside of the panels of Dylewski/the combination attached via adhesive, for the benefits disclosed by Schmeichel for its support bows. It would also have been obvious to attach them in the wrench grooves shown in order to reduce the overall height of the cover and provide more storage space and/or as a mere selection of an art appropriate location for the support bows.
With Respect to Claim 10
An anti-detachment hook structure for a car cover according to claim 1, wherein, the car cover includes a first connecting plate and a second connecting plate (noting multiple panels of the cover), the first connecting plate is provided with a third connecting surface, the second connecting plate is provided with a fourth connecting surface; but does not disclose that the car cover includes a first rubber strip, and a second rubber strip, the second rubber strip provided with a first connecting surface and a second connecting surface, the first connecting surface is connected to the fourth connecting surface by glue, the second connecting surface is connected to the third connecting surface by glue. It is noted that Dylewski discloses that its car cover folds but does not detail the hinge structure that allows this.
However, Schmeichel discloses forming a similar tonneau cover with flexible hinges (545) between the panels (536), the flexible hinges made of rubber (see, e.g. [0127]), and thus discloses first and second connecting plates (536, see e.g. FIGS. 5A-C) and first and second rubber strips (the flexible hinges as shown are rubber strips, the second rubber strip provided with a first connecting surface (e.g. top left in FIG. 5A) and a second connecting surface (e.g. top right in FIG. 5A), the first connecting surface is connected to the fourth connecting surface (i.e. underside of left 536 having adhesive 570a) of the second connecting plate by glue (570a), the second connecting surface is connected to the third connecting surface (i.e. underside of right 536 having adhesive 570a) by glue (570a]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Schmeichel, to form the Dylewski car cover with flexible hinges as taught by Schmeichel, in order to allow for the tonneau cover to fold as taught by Dylewski and Schmeichel, for the benefits disclosed by Schmeichel for its hinge structure, and/or as a mere selection of an art appropriate hinge/cover structure or at most a mere substitution of one art known cover/hinge structure for another.
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
Prosecution Insights