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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it has more than 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 10118473, claims 1-8 of US Pat No 10889169 and claims 1-20 of US Pat No 12151546. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The current claims are drawn to a pick-up truck bed cover that comprises a release assembly that includes a first electronic actuator; a pull rod; a mechanical override rod; a and first latch that has a first latch arm.
These and other elements are presented in the ‘473, ‘169 and ‘546 claims.
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 15 and 20 require the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
139
666
media_image1.png
Greyscale
At the instant, the limitation is indefinite since it is unclear from the claim language how the override rod will manually operate the latch arm without an actuator (handle or key cylinder). Correction is required.
Claims 6 and 7 require that the release assembly further includes a rod that extends from the mechanical override rod of the first electronic actuator, wherein the rod is configured to be manually moved.
At the instant, the limitation is indefinite since there is no support for a rod that extends from the mechanical override rod. As shown in the drawings, fig 5, the override rod 42 is coupled to a rod 20, not that the rod 20 “extends from” the override rod 42. That is totally different.
Therefore, cancellation is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat No 8,029,029 to Terhaar et al (Terhaar 029) in view of US Pat No 5,076,622 to Detweller and US Pat No 3,584,905 to Emanaker.
PNG
media_image2.png
725
1400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1, 15-17, and 20, Terhaar 029 discloses a pick-up truck bed cover (55) that comprises a release assembly attached to the pick-up truck bed cover. The release assembly includes a first electronic actuator (115) that a pull rod (135) that extends exterior of the first electronic actuator.
The release assembly further comprises a first latch (200) located at one side of the pick-up truck bed cover; that comprises a first latch arm (130).
The pull rod is attached to the first latch arm and is configured to selectively move the first latch arm.
Terhaar 029 fails to disclose that the pull rod is part of a mechanical override rod that has an axially opposed end extending exterior of the first electronic actuator, wherein the mechanical override rod of the first electronic actuator is manually operable to move the first latch arm if the first electronic actuator does not move the first latch arm.
Terhaar 029 discloses that the latch arm can be manually operated by a handle assembly (not shown, through a cable connected to the latch arm).
PNG
media_image3.png
581
1513
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Detweller teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a mechanical override rod comprises a pull rod (58) at one side of an actuator (32) and an override cable (84) at the other side of the actuator, so that the latch arm (40) can be operated by means of the actuator moving the pull rod, or if the actuator does not works, then it can be manually moved by means of the override rod (84).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the actuator described by Terhaar 029 with a mechanical override rod, as taught by Detweller, in order to be able to unlatch the cover manually in the event the actuator does not function.
PNG
media_image4.png
557
1070
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Emanaker teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a connecting element that can be either a cable or a rod (38, col 5 lines 4-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the connecting element as a rod, as taught by Emanaker, in order to provide a more rigid member to connect the elements.
As to claims 2 and 18, Terhaar 029 discloses that the pick-up truck bed cover can comprises a 2nd electronic actuator with the respective elements to interact with a 2nd latch (col 6 line 30 discloses more than one). Terhaar 029, as modified by Detweller, will teach the use of a manual override feature.
As to claims 14 and 19, Terhaar 029 discloses that the pick-up truck bed cover is selected from the group consisting of a tonneau cover and a truck cap.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3-5, 8 and 9 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.
Claims 10-13 would also be allowed, since the claims depend from claims 3 and 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS LUGO whose telephone number is (571)272-7058. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6pm.
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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at (571)272-7376. 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.
/Carlos Lugo/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3675
March 22, 2026