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 .
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.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 17/950,269, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
The current application claims, “at least one first support rod” and “at least one second support rod” connected to the frames to support the panels. There is no indication in the specification nor the drawings of the prior filed ‘269 application to support the addition of the support rods in the current application. As such, the application is being afforded the effective filing date of 05 January 2025 for the invention which is claimed in the current claim set.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses the prohibited term “discloses” in line 1. 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Thompson (US 2025/0249734).
Regarding Claim 1, Thompson discloses a cover for a pickup truck, detachably mounted on the rear cargo hopper (Fig. 1), formed by splicing at least two panel frame assemblies 12, 13, wherein each panel frame assembly consists of a panel and four frames surrounding the periphery of the panel (panel 20 surrounded by frames 27, 28, 200; Fig. 2), the four frames include two first frames arranged parallel to each other and two second frames arranged parallel to each other (Fig. 2), with the first frames being perpendicular to the second frames, wherein at least one first support rod 22 (Fig. 3) is provided along the vertical direction relative to the first frames and is connected to the two first frames, the first support rod is abutted against the panel (paragraph 0046). As the clause “and/or” makes the second support rod optional, it has not been considered in the rejection.
Regarding Claim 2, a rotating shaft is pivotally connected at the junction of two adjacent panel frame assemblies (rotating shafts located between the frames of joint 200; Figs. 18 and 19), allowing one of the panel frame assemblies to rotate relative to the adjacent panel frame assembly around the axis of the rotating shaft, this enables the two panel frame assemblies to be in either a horizontally flat state or a vertically folded state.
Regarding Claim 3, Thompson discloses a second panel 13 with a second support rod 32, wherein the first support rod 22 is arranged on a side of the second support rod 32 away from the panel.
Regarding Claim 6, the first support rod 22 is positioned on the side of the second support rod away from the second panel (Fig. 3), the side of the second support rod 32 that close to the panel is in contact with the panel 13, the second support rod is arranged between the first support rod and the panel (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 12, the support rods 22, 32 are abutted against the panels (paragraph 0046).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5 and 7-11 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: applicant’s use of a first and second support rod for the tonneau cover, wherein the intersection of the first and second rods includes a groove in one of the rods to accommodate the other rod, is novel.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art relates to tonneau covers for pickup trucks and their underlying structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON S DANIELS whose telephone number is (571)270-1167. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/JASON S DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights