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 .
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 4 be found allowable, claim 7 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muirhead (6,588,826) in view of Platto et al. (D809,429).
Muirhead, in reference to claims 1 and 9-12, discloses a contour filler bracket (38) for use on a bulkhead (20) of a cargo box of a pickup truck (10) having a tonneau cover panel (28), as shown in Figures 1 and 2. The contour filler bracket (38) comprises a longitudinally extending bracket member (38) having a front edge adjacent cab (20) and a rear edge spaced apart from the front edge, as shown in Figure 2. The bracket member (38) is configured to extend substantially a length of the top edge contour of the bulkhead (20) between spaced apart sidewalls (18,22), as shown in Figures 1 and 2. At least a portion of the bracket member (38) is seated on top of the bulkhead (20), as shown in Figure 2. The front edge of the bracket member (38) at least approximates the top edge contour of the bulkhead (20), as shown in Figure 2. The rear edge of the bracket member (38) is linearly extending, as shown in Figures 1 and 2. A front edge of the tonneau cover (28) is configured to overlap the rear edge of the bracket member (38) to shroud a portion of the cargo box adjacent the bulkhead (20), as shown in Figure 2.
PNG
media_image1.png
531
593
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In reference to claims 2 and 13, the bracket member (38) includes a ledge portion (118) extending between the front edge and the rear edge and a flange portion (114) that extends from the rear edge of the bracket member (38), as shown in Figure 2.
In reference to claims 3 and 14, the flange portion (114) extends transverse with respect to the ledge portion, as shown in Figure 2.
In reference to claims 4, 7, and 15, the flange portion (114) is secured to the bulkhead (20), as shown in Figure 2 and disclosed on lines 38-42 of column 4. Neither claim requires a direct connection between the flange portion and the bulkhead. The connection between the bracket and the bulkhead meets the claim language.
In reference to claim 18, the tonneau cover assembly (24) comprises a bulkhead panel (38) configured to shroud at least a portion of the cargo box, as shown in Figures 1 and 2. The bulkhead panel (38) includes a leading edge that at least approximates at least a portion of the top edge contour of the bulkhead (20), as shown in Figure 2. At least a portion of the leading edge of the bulkhead panel (38) is configured to overlap at least a portion of the bulkhead (20) to shroud the at least portion of the cargo box adjacent the bulkhead (20), as shown in Figure 2.
However, Muirhead does not disclose the bulkhead has a nonlinear top edge contour.
Platto et al. teaches forming a pickup truck bulkhead with a nonlinear top edge contour, as shown in Figure 7.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the front/leading edge of the bracket member/bulkhead member of Muirhead with a nonlinear shape to match the nonlinear shape of an associated bulkhead, as taught by Platto et al., with a reasonable expectation for success to prevent contact with the cab to prevent contact with the cab to prevent noises and damage.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Muirhead (6,588,826) and Platto et al. (D809,429), as applied to claim 1, in view of Addicott (US 2003/0193210).
Muirhead, as modified, does not disclose the apertures.
Addicott teaches providing apertures in a flange portion of a bracket (48) to receive fasteners (53), as shown in Figure 1 and disclosed in paragraph [0020].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide apertures to receive fasteners in the flange portion of the bracket of Muirhead, as modified, as taught by Addicott, with a reasonable expectation for success as an obvious expedient to fix the bracket to the bulkhead to prevent rattles.
Claims 6, 8, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Muirhead (6,588,826) and Platto et al. (D809,429), as applied to claims 1, 9, and 18, in view of Keller (US 2006/0012211).
Muirhead, as modified, does not disclose the gasket.
Keller teaches providing a gasket (92) under a bracket member/bulkhead panel (62e) such that it is between the bracket member/bulkhead panel and the bulkhead (58), as shown in Figure 14.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a gasket under the bracket member/bulkhead panel of Muirhead, as modified, such that it is between the bracket member/bulkhead panel and the bulkhead, as taught by Keller, with a reasonable expectation for success to prevent water leaks into the truck bed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY A BLANKENSHIP whose telephone number is (571)272-6656. The examiner can normally be reached 7-4:30.
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5500. 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.
GREGORY A. BLANKENSHIP
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3612
/GREGORY A BLANKENSHIP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612 June 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights