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 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 6 is 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.
In claim 6, line 2, the phrase, “from about 15 cm to about 20 cm large” is indefinite. The term “large” is not conventionally used to describe a dimension of an object.
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, 3, 5, 7, and 12-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9, 11-13, and 15-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,240,302. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 3, 5, 7, and 12-14 are generic to all that is recited in claims 9, 11-13, and 15-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,240,302. In other words, claims 9, 11-13, and 15-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,240,302 fully encompass the subject matter of claims 1, 3, 5, 7, and 12-14.
Claims of the Current Invention
Corresponding claims of U.S. 12,240,302
1
9
3
11
5
12
7
13
12
15
13
16
14
17
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 8-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Michel (US Patent 4,484,777).
Re claim 1, Michel discloses a vehicle container (14, figure 3) movable by a vehicle, the vehicle container comprising a bottom wall (seen in figure 2) and a peripheral wall (12, figure 2) extending upwardly therefrom, the peripheral wall being terminated opposed the bottom wall by a peripheral wall top edge delimiting a container top aperture, the peripheral wall defining a wall rear end (shown in figure 3) located at a rear of the container when the container is moved by the vehicle, a tarpaulin (100, figure 3) movable between extended and retracted configurations, wherein, in the extended configuration, the tarpaulin is mounted to the container extending across the container top aperture (as shown in figure 3), and in the retracted configuration (as shown in figure 2), the tarpaulin is withdrawn from at least part of the container top aperture to allow access to the container (as in figure 2) , the tarpaulin defining a tarpaulin rear end edge (the rear edge of 100 interacting with 20 in figure 3), and a flutter reducer (21, figure 3) operatively coupled to the tarpaulin so that when the tarpaulin is in the extended configuration and the container is moved by the vehicle, the flutter reducer limits movements of the tarpaulin at the tarpaulin rear end edge to reduce flutter due to relative wind caused by movement through air of the covered vehicle container (this function is inherent to the device), wherein the flutter reducer includes a support member (20) mounted to the container peripheral wall at the wall rear end and reaching above the peripheral wall top edge, the support member defining an apex (the apex of the curved portion of 20 in figure 2), the tarpaulin abutting against the support member at the apex in the tarpaulin extended configuration.
Re claim 2, in the tarpaulin extended configuration, the tarpaulin is stretched taut laterally across the container top aperture (the function of 20 is to laterally stretch the tarpaulin).
Re claim 8, the apex is substantially laterally centered relative to the container (as seen in figure 2).
Re claim 9, in the tarpaulin extended configuration, the tarpaulin is under a higher tension at the apex than at forwardly located portions thereof (at locations just forward of 20 in figure 2, the tarpaulin will naturally be under less tension as there is no support).
Re claim 10, in the extended configuration, the tarpaulin is longitudinally raised at the apex relative to frontwardly located portions thereof (at locations just forward of 20 in figure 2, the tarpaulin will sag to as there is direct support).
Re claim 11, in the extended configuration, the tarpaulin slopes longitudinally downwardly away from the apex in a back to front direction (at locations just forward of 20 in figure 2, the tarpaulin will sag as there is no direct support).
Re claim 12, Michel discloses a method of reducing damage due to flutter in a tarpaulin extended across a top aperture of a vehicle container (14, figure 3) moving through air, the top aperture being delimited by a peripheral wall top edge (the top edge is seen in figure 2), the method comprising: rigidifying the tarpaulin at a rear end (by the use of 21) thereof to reduce amplitude of the flutter due to relative wind between the tarpaulin and the air by abutting the tarpaulin at the tarpaulin rear end edge against a support member (20) protruding above the peripheral wall top edge.
Re claim 13, the tarpaulin is abutted against the support member substantially laterally centered relative to the container (as shown in figure 2).
Re claim 14, the method includes stretching the tarpaulin above the support member with a larger tension than forwardly located portions of the tarpaulin (at locations just forward of 20 in figure 2, the tarpaulin will naturally be under less tension as there is no direct support).
Re claim 15, the tarpaulin is longitudinally raised by the support relative to frontwardly located portions thereof (at locations just forward of 20 in figure 2, the tarpaulin will sag as there is no direct support).
Re claim 16, the tarpaulin slopes longitudinally downwardly away from the support in a back to front direction (at locations just forward of 20 in figure 2, the tarpaulin will sag as there is no direct support).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 6 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. The cited references all disclose vehicle tarpaulin devices.
US Patent Application Publication 2025/0019013 discloses a tarpaulin frame.
US Patent 9,387,788 discloses a tarpaulin frame.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason S Morrow whose telephone number is (571)272-6663. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m..
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at (571) 272-5109. 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.
/JASON S MORROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
July 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights