DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response to the amendment and / or remarks filed on June 29, 2026. Claims 1 – 20 are pending and currently being examined.
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 § 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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 8 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (U.S. Patent Number 11,453,343 B1) to Henry Jr.
Regarding claim 1, Henry Jr., discloses the sliding mount assembly (10) for use with a truck bed cover that includes a first panel attached to a second panel at a pivot axis, the sliding mount assembly (10) comprising:
the first mounting bracket (30) that is configured to mount to the first panel;
the second mounting bracket (32) that is configured to mount to the second panel; and
the sliding rail (28) that is configured to connect to the first mounting bracket (30) and the second mounting bracket (32) such that the sliding rail (28) spans the pivot axis between the first panel and the second panel, the sliding rail (28) comprising the track (114) that extends lengthwise in a vehicle longitudinal direction that is configured to slidably receive the sliding flange (132) of the second mounting bracket (32) such that the sliding flange slides within the track in the vehicle longitudinal direction as the second panel is pivoted relative to the first panel to a raised position (See Figures 2, 3 & 6);
wherein the second mounting bracket (32) comprises the bracket (See Figures 2 & 3) and the mounting base (140) that is pivotally (i.e. via Bolt Fastener (146) Joint Connection in Figures 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 9) mounted to the bracket (144) such that the bracket (144) rotates as the second panel is pivoted, the mounting base (140) comprising the sliding flange (132) (See Figures 2, 3 & 6).
In addition, Henry Jr., recites: “In accordance with the provisions of the patent statutes, the present invention has been described in what is considered to represent its preferred embodiments. However, it should be noted that the invention can be practiced otherwise than as specifically illustrated and described without departing from its spirit or scope.” (See Column 9, lines 50 – 55).
Therefore, depending on placement of the first and second brackets, the user could place the first and second mounting brackets and sliding rail and track of Henry Jr., along the length of the vehicle instead of across the vehicle.
Regarding claim 2, Henry Jr., discloses wherein the second mounting bracket (32) comprises the mounting base (140) comprising the sliding flange (132) including an enlarged head (See Figures 3 & 6) that is sized to be received within the track (114).
Regarding claim 4, Henry Jr., discloses wherein the track (114) is T-shaped (See Figure 8) having the necked-down portion (i.e. via Left & Right (110) in Figure 8) configured to retain the sliding flange (132) therein.
Regarding claim 5, Henry Jr., discloses wherein the sliding rail (28) comprises an end cover (194) that is configured to be removed (i.e. via (196) in Figure 9) to expose an open end of the track (114) (See Figures 3, 5 & 9).
Regarding claim 8, Henry Jr., discloses wherein the second mounting bracket (32) comprises the bracket (144) and the mounting base (134 / 140) that is pivotally mounted (i.e. via Bolt Fastener (146) Joint Connection in Figures 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 9) to the bracket (144), the mounting base (134 / 140) comprising the sliding flange (132) (See Figures 3 & 6).
Regarding claim 10, Henry Jr., discloses wherein the sliding flange (132) is formed monolithically with the plate of the second mounting bracket (32) (See Figures 3 & 6).
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.
Claim(s) 3, 6 & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (U.S. Patent Number 11,453,343 B1) to Henry Jr., in view of (U.S. Patent Number 3,677,451) to Burland.
Regarding claim 3, Henry Jr., does not explicitly disclose wherein the track is the first track and the sliding flange is the first sliding flange, the sliding rail comprising the second track that extends in the vehicle longitudinal direction that is configured to slidably receive the second sliding flange of the second mounting bracket such that the second sliding flange slides within the track as the second panel is pivoted relative to the first panel to the raised position.
Burland teaches wherein the track (29) is the first track (See Figures 2 & 6) and the sliding flange (90) is the first sliding flange (See Figure 2), the sliding rail (16) comprising the second track (30) that extends in the vehicle longitudinal direction (See Figure 1) that is configured to slidably receive the second sliding flange (91) of the second mounting bracket (22 / 70) such that the second sliding flange (91) slides within the track (30) as the second panel is pivoted relative to the first panel to the raised position (See Figures 1, 2 & 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the track is the first track and the sliding flange is the first sliding flange, the sliding rail comprising the second track that extends in the vehicle longitudinal direction that is configured to slidably receive the second sliding flange of the second mounting bracket such that the second sliding flange slides within the track as the second panel is pivoted relative to the first panel to the raised position as taught by Burland with the sliding mount assembly of Henry Jr., et al., because the motivation only requires a simple substitution of one known equivalent sliding rail comprising the second track configured to slidably receive the second sliding flange configuration for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, Henry Jr., as modified by Burland discloses wherein the sliding flange (90) is the first sliding flange (See Figure 2), the first mounting bracket (21 / 70) comprising the second sliding flange (91) that is configured to be received by the track (30) (See Figures 1 & 2).
Regarding claim 7, Henry Jr., as modified by Burland discloses wherein the second sliding flange (91) is fastened to the plate (i.e. Flat Rectangular Plate Shape of (91) in Figure 2) of the first mounting bracket (21 / 70) (See Figure 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 – 20 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, Henry Jr., does not disclose the sliding rail comprising a track that extends lengthwise in a vehicle longitudinal direction that is configured to slidably receive a sliding flange of the second mounting bracket such that the sliding flange slides within the track in the vehicle longitudinal direction as the second panel is pivoted relative to the first panel to a raised position wherein the second mounting bracket comprises a bracket and a mounting base that is pivotally mounted to the bracket such that the bracket rotates as the second panel is pivoted, the mounting base comprising the sliding flange.
Examiner disagrees, in response to applicant's argument that Henry Jr., does not disclose the sliding rail comprising a track that extends lengthwise in a vehicle longitudinal direction that is configured to slidably receive a sliding flange of the second mounting bracket such that the sliding flange slides within the track in the vehicle longitudinal direction as the second panel is pivoted relative to the first panel to a raised position wherein the second mounting bracket comprises a bracket and a mounting base that is pivotally mounted to the bracket such that the bracket rotates as the second panel is pivoted, the mounting base comprising the sliding flange.
A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Henry Jr., recites: “In accordance with the provisions of the patent statutes, the present invention has been described in what is considered to represent its preferred embodiments. However, it should be noted that the invention can be practiced otherwise than as specifically illustrated and described without departing from its spirit or scope.” (See Column 9, lines 50 – 55).
Depending on placement of the first and second brackets, the user could place the first and second mounting brackets and sliding rail and track of Henry Jr., along the length of the vehicle instead of across the vehicle.
Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, Henry Jr., meets and satisfies the structural limitations as set forth in Claim 1.
Therefore, the §102 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018 / 0118127 A1) to Wymore discloses the sliding mount assembly (10) (See Figures 2 & 3).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LESTER L VANTERPOOL whose telephone number is (571)272-8028. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00.
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 J. 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.
/L.L.V/Examiner, Art Unit 3734
/NATHAN J NEWHOUSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights