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 .
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 details of claims 57 and 61 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 § 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) 50-54 and 56-65 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCarthur (AU 2021104444) in view of Franzen (US 3742966). McCarthur discloses a vehicle mounted shelter for accommodating sleeping couples or a family, the vehicle mounted shelter comprising: a first deck (201) attached to a second deck (202), the first deck forming a first division sized to accommodate a sleeping couple and the second deck forming a second division sized to accommodate a sleeping couple; the first deck secured to a vehicle such that the first is substantially parallel to a roof of the vehicle (0003, 0025), wherein in a closed state the second deck is positioned substantially above the first deck and wherein in an open state the second deck extends from an end of the first deck and both the first deck and the second deck are oriented substantially parallel to the roof of the vehicle; a privacy barrier (0038) positioned between the first division and the second division, the privacy barrier substantially isolating the first division and the second division, including substantially limiting visibility and or sound transmission between the divisions, wherein the vehicle mounted shelter is moveable between the closed state for storage or transport with the vehicle and the open state where the first deck and the second deck are each accessible for sleeping. Assuming arguendo that McCarthur’s privacy barrier does not substantially limit visibility or sound between the divisions, such material would have been obvious since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. The motivation would have been to provide privacy between the two divisions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the invention to McCarthur as specified in claim 50. Furthermore, McCarthur is silent as to the orientation of the shelter when mounted to a vehicle. Franzen teaches a vehi1cle mounted shelter wherein in the open state the first deck and the second deck extend longitudinally along the vehicle and create a footprint that is substantially within a footprint of the vehicle (figures 2-3). McCarthur and Franzen are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. vehicle mounted shelters. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to modify McCarthur’s invention as taught by Franzen (i.e. to arrange the first and second decks longitudinally within a footprint of a vehicle). The motivation would have been to provide a shelter that takes up minimal space when open. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the invention to McCarthur as specified in claim 50.
With regards to claim 51, the first deck and the second deck do not substantially exceed the width of the footprint of the vehicle (Franzen: figure 2).
In regards to claim 52, the vehicle is a recreational vehicle, and the recreational vehicle includes a tub or rear loading area (McCarthur: 0003).
Regarding claim 53, although McCarthur as modified does not teach wherein the first division and the second division are each sized to accommodate adults of 1.7 metres to 1.9 metres tall, such construction would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. The motivation would have been to accommodate a wide range of users. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the invention to McCarthur as specified in claim 53.
In regards to claim 54, the first deck is attached to the second deck via a hinge (McCarthur: 0021).
Regarding claims 56-58, McCarthur discloses a fall barrier extending from at least one of the first deck and the second deck; wherein the fall barrier comprises a wall extending upwards from the at least one of the first deck and the second deck; wherein the fall barrier extends from both the first deck and the second deck (McCarthur: 0029-0032). Additionally, Franzen teaches a fall barrier (32, 34) wherein the fall barrier comprises a wall extending from the at least one of the first deck and the second deck. It would have been obvious to include said fall barriers with the invention to McCarthur. The motivation would have been to prevent users from falling out of the deck(s), thereby increasing the safety of the shelter. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the invention to McCarthur as specified in claims 56-58.
With regards to claim 59, McCarthur discloses a collapsible canopy (230) erected above at least one of the first deck and the second deck.
Regarding claim 60, the privacy barrier is connected to both the canopy and the at least one of the first deck and the second deck.
In regards to claim 61, Franzen teaches wherein the supports (24) run from the at least one deck and the second deck to the canopy in vertical grooves (figure 5). It would have been obvious to modify McCarthur’s invention (i.e. supports) as taught by Franzen. The motivation would have been to prevent snagging of the canopy/privacy barrier when opening/closing the shelter. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the invention to McCarthur as specified in claim 61. Accordingly, McCarthur as modified teaches wherein the privacy barrier (attached to one of the supports) runs from the at least one of the first deck and the second deck to the canopy in vertical grooves.
With regards to claim 62, the first deck and the second deck are positioned end to end in the open configuration (Franzen: figures 2-3) and the first deck and the second deck are positioned one over the other in the closed configuration (McCarthur: figure 1A; Franzen: figure 1).
In regards to claim 63, McCarthur discloses support legs extending from the second deck to support the second deck (McCarthur: 0036).
With regards to claims 64-65, McCarthur as modified by Franzen teaches wherein the second deck extends from the roof of the vehicle, and the support legs are kept substantially within the footprint of the second deck. As to the specific orientation of the second deck (i.e. extending from the roof either forward over a bonnet or backward over a tub or rear loading area), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since it has been held that rearranging of parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation would have been a matter of design choice based on user preference.
Claim(s) 55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCarthur (AU 2021104444) in view of Franzen (US 3742966), and in further view of Park (US 20150292230). McCarthur as modified, teaches the invention of claim 50. However, McCarthur as modified does not teach wherein the first and second decks are slidably related. Park teaches a vehicle mounted shelter comprising first (110) and second (140) decks which are slidably related (0050). McCarthur and Park are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. vehicle mounted shelters. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to modify McCarthur’s invention as taught by Park. The motivation would have been to provide an alternative expedient to open/expand the vehicle mounted shelter. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the invention to McCarthur as specified in claim 55.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-8227. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thurs, 6-6.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. 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.
/JONATHAN LIU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3631
