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.
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 1-3, 7-8, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huisman US 20210086703 A1 (hereinafter ‘703).
Regarding claim 1, ‘703 discloses a rack system (‘703 10; ‘703 Fig. 1) for a truck (‘703 T) (‘703 paragraph 0025) comprising:
a rail system comprising a first rail (‘703 12) and a second rail (‘703 14), each rail having a first end (‘703 16/16’) and a second end (‘703 18/18’), the second rail configured to be spaced apart from and positioned parallel to the first rail, the first rail and the second rail bordering a bed of the truck (‘703 B) (‘703 Fig. 7; ‘703 paragraph 0025); and
a first support structure (‘703 20) and a second support structure (‘703 22) and each having a first end (‘703 24/24’) and a second end (‘703 26/26’) and comprising a cross member (‘703 28/28’) having a first end (‘703 30/30’) and a second end (‘703 32/32’) (‘703 Fig. 4; ‘703 paragraph 0026), said first support structure and said second support structure each having at least one accessory attachment fixture (‘703 38/46; ‘703 Fig. 3) provided thereon configured to couple at least one truck accessory thereto (‘703 paragraphs 0035-0037), each cross member configured to laterally extend between said first rail and said second rail, wherein said first support structure and said second support structure are configured to engage with said rail system (‘703 paragraph 0026) and wherein at least said first support structure is configured to be slidably positioned within said rail system such that said first support structure abuts said second support structure in an unloaded configuration and is separated from said second support structure in a loaded configuration (‘703 paragraph 0031).
Regarding claim 2, ‘703 discloses the rack system of claim 1 wherein the first rail and the second rail are configured to be attached to opposite sides or opposite walls of the bed of the truck (‘703 claim 12).
Regarding claim 3, ‘703 discloses the rack system of claim 1 wherein said a first rail and said second rail are formed of aluminum (‘703 paragraph 0025).
Regarding claim 7, ‘703 discloses the rack system of claim 1 wherein the at least one accessory attachment fixture of said first support structure and said second support structure are each independently provided on the cross member, on a first side (‘703 34) of said first support structure (‘703 Fig. 4) or said second support structure, or on a second side of said first support structure or said second support structure (‘703 46; ‘703 Fig. 4; ‘703 paragraph 0036).
Regarding claim 8, ‘703 discloses the rack system of claim 1 wherein the at least one accessory attachment fixture of said first support structure and said second support structure each independently include a plurality of accessory attachment fixtures (‘703 38 and 46; ‘703 Fig. 4; ‘703 paragraphs 0036-0037).
Regarding claim 18, ‘703 discloses the rack system of claim 1 wherein at least said first support structure includes a lock mechanism (‘703 25; ‘703 Fig. 6) near its first end and second end configured to secure the position of said first support structure relative to said second support structure along a length of the first rail and the second rail, and optionally, the lock mechanism is actuated by a handle provided on at least said first support structure (‘703 paragraph 0032).
Regarding claim 19, ‘703 discloses the rack system of claim 1 wherein the cross member of each of said support structures includes a roller (‘703 40) or a winch (‘703 42) fixed to the cross member of said second support structure (‘703 paragraphs 0034-0035), or a plurality of slide stops (‘703 56; ‘703 paragraph 0038) (‘703 Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 20, ‘703 discloses the rack system of claim 1 further comprising at least one tie down strap (‘703 46) or bungie cord connected at a first end to each of said support structures, the at least one tie down strap or bungie cord extendable from each of said support structures (‘703 Fig. 4; ‘703 paragraph 0036).
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.
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.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huisman US 20210086703 A1 (hereinafter ‘703), in view of Kramer CA2667750A1.
Regarding claim 4, ‘703 discloses the rack system of claim 1, as discussed above, but does not disclose wherein said first support structure and said second support structure are formed of sheet molding composition (SMC) that has exterior vehicle surface finish.
However, Kramer discloses a rack system (Kramer 10; Kramer Fig. 1) wherein a first support structure (Kramer 20) and a second support structure (Kramer 18) are formed of a sheet molding composition that has exterior vehicle surface finish (Kramer paragraph 0007).
Therefore, it 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 to combine the rack system of ‘703 with the support structure designs as taught by Kramer with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage of incorporating readily manufactured components for reducing construction time for the overall rack system structure (Kramer paragraph 0007), as would be known by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 5, ‘703 does not disclose the rack system of claim 4 wherein the SMC material of said first support structure and said second support structure is configured to be painted to match a color of the truck (Kramer paragraph 0007).
However, Kramer discloses a rack system, as discussed in claim 4 above, wherein an SMC material of said first support structure and said second support structure is configured to be painted to match a color of the truck (Kramer paragraph 0007).
Therefore, it 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 to combine the rack system of ‘703 with the ornamental designs as taught by Kramer with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage of incorporating readily painted components for reducing construction time for the overall rack system structure (Kramer paragraph 0007), as would be known by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 6 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huisman US 20210086703 A1 (hereinafter ‘703), in view of Kiefer et al. US 20220324392 A1.
Regarding claim 6, ‘703 discloses the rack system of claim 1, as discussed above, but does not disclose wherein the at least one accessory attachment fixture of said first support structure and said second support structure are each independently at least one of hook and loop, a snap, a threaded hole, a threaded post, a clamp, a hook, or a magnet.
However, Kiefer et al. disclose a rack system (Kiefer et al. 10A/10B; Kiefer et al. Fig. 2) wherein at least one accessory attachment fixture (Kiefer et al. 300; Kiefer et al. Fig. 9) of a first support structure (Kiefer et al. 100; Kiefer et al. Fig. 2) and a second support structure (Kiefer et al. 100; Kiefer et al. Fig. 2) are each independently (Kiefer et al. Fig. 4) at least one of hook and loop, a snap, a threaded hole, a threaded post, a clamp, a hook, or a magnet (Kiefer et al. Fig. 10).
Therefore, it 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 to combine the rack system of ‘703 with the hook fixture as taught by Kiefer et al. with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage of attaching additional accessory mounting surfaces to the overall rack system (Kiefer et al. Fig. 4; Kiefer et al. paragraph 0147).
Regarding claim 11, ‘703 discloses the rack system of claim 1, as discussed above, but does not disclose wherein the at least one truck accessory is a modular surface structure configured to couple to the at least one accessory attachment fixture of said first support structure and said second support structure and configured to overlie at least a portion of the cross members of said first support structure and said second support structure and wherein the modular surface is adapted to be used as a countertop, a work surface, a tabletop, or a floor, and optionally, the modular surface is configured to overlie at least the portion of the cross members of said first support structure and said second support structure when the support structures are in the loaded configuration or the modular surface is used as a countertop or table or floor.
However, Kiefer et al. disclose a rack system (Kiefer et al. 10A/10B; Kiefer et al. Fig. 2) wherein at least one truck accessory is a modular surface structure (annotated Kiefer et al. Fig. 15H) configured to couple to at least one accessory attachment fixture (Kiefer et al. 300; Kiefer et al. Fig. 9; Kiefer et al. paragraph 0081) of a first support structure (Kiefer et al. 100; Kiefer et al. Fig. 2) and a second support structure (Kiefer et al. 100; Kiefer et al. Fig. 2) and configured to overlie at least a portion of cross members of said first support structure and said second support structure (Kiefer et al. 200; Kiefer et al. Fig. 2) and wherein the modular surface is adapted to be used as a countertop, a work surface, a tabletop, or a floor (Kiefer et al. Fig. 15G; Kiefer et al. paragraphs 0029 and 0221), and optionally, the modular surface is configured to overlie at least the portion of the cross members of said first support structure and said second support structure when the support structures are in the loaded configuration or the modular surface is used as a countertop or table or floor (Kiefer et al. Figs. 15G-15H; Kiefer et al. paragraphs 0029 and 0221).
Therefore, it 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 to combine the rack system of ‘703 with the modular surface structure as taught by Kiefer et al. with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage of allowing a user to integrate an additional truck accessory to the rack system (Kiefer et al. paragraph 0004), expanding the utility of the rack device, as would be known by one of ordinary skill in the art.
PNG
media_image1.png
367
462
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, ‘703 discloses the rack system of claim 1, as discussed above, but does not disclose wherein the at least one truck accessory is a modular surface structure configured to couple to the at least one accessory attachment fixture of said first support structure and said second support structure and configured to overlie at least a portion of the cross members of said first support structure and said second support structure and wherein the modular surface is used as a floor, the rack system further comprises a canopy as a second truck accessory, the canopy configured to couple to and extend up from the floor and provide a covered shelter space over the floor, and optionally, the covered shelter space is a camping tent or a hunting blind.
However, Kiefer et al. disclose a rack system (Kiefer et al. 10A/10B; Kiefer et al. Fig. 2) wherein at least one truck accessory is a modular surface structure (annotated Kiefer et al. Fig. 15H above) configured to couple to at least one accessory attachment fixture (Kiefer et al. 300; Kiefer et al. Fig. 9; Kiefer et al. paragraph 0081) of a first support structure (Kiefer et al. 100; Kiefer et al. Fig. 2) and a second support structure (Kiefer et al. 100; Kiefer et al. Fig. 2) and configured to overlie at least a portion of cross members of said first support structure and said second support structure (Kiefer et al. 200; Kiefer et al. Fig. 2) and wherein the modular surface is used as a floor (Kiefer et al. Fig. 15G; Kiefer et al. paragraphs 0029 and 0221), the rack system further comprises a canopy as a second truck accessory (see annotated Kiefer et al. Fig. 15G; Kiefer et al. paragraphs 0129 and 0134), the canopy configured to couple to and extend up from the floor and provide a covered shelter space over the floor, and optionally, the covered shelter space is a camping tent or a hunting blind (Kiefer et al. Figs. 15G-15H; Kiefer et al. paragraph 0167).
Therefore, it 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 to combine the rack system of ‘703 with the modular surface structure and canopy as taught by Kiefer et al. with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage of allowing a user to integrate additional truck accessories to the rack system (Kiefer et al. paragraph 0004), expanding the utility of the rack device, as would be known by one of ordinary skill in the art.
PNG
media_image2.png
400
425
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, ‘703 discloses the rack system of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the at least one truck accessory is: a shade canopy or a hammock configured to couple to the at least one accessory attachment fixture of said first support structure and said second support structure and configured to extend between said first support structure and said second support structure over the bed of the truck when said first support structure and said second support structure are in the loaded configuration; or an awning configured to couple to the at least one accessory attachment fixture of said first support structure and said second support structure and configured to extend between said first support structure and said second support structure in the loaded configuration and extend beyond the bed of the truck.
However, Kiefer et al. disclose a rack system (Kiefer et al. 10A/10B; Kiefer et al. Fig. 2) wherein at least one truck accessory is: a shade canopy or a hammock (see annotated Kiefer et al. Fig. 15G above) configured to couple to at least one accessory attachment fixture (Kiefer et al. 300; Kiefer et al. Fig. 9; Kiefer et al. paragraph 0081) of a first support structure (Kiefer et al. 100; Kiefer et al. Fig. 2) and a second support structure (Kiefer et al. 100; Kiefer et al. Fig. 2) and configured to extend between said first support structure and said second support structure over a bed of a truck when said first support structure and said second support structure are in a loaded configuration (Kiefer et al. Fig. 15H; Kiefer et al. paragraphs 0029 and 0221); or an awning (Kiefer et al. paragraphs 0141-0143) configured to couple to the at least one accessory attachment fixture of said first support structure and said second support structure and configured to extend between said first support structure and said second support structure in the loaded configuration and extend beyond the bed of the truck (Kiefer et al. Fig. 15H; Kiefer et al. paragraphs 0029 and 0221).
Therefore, it 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 to combine the rack system of ‘703 with the shade canopy as taught by Kiefer et al. with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage of allowing a user to integrate an additional truck accessory to the rack system (Kiefer et al. paragraph 0004), expanding the utility of the rack device, as would be known by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huisman US 20210086703 A1 (hereinafter ‘703), in view of Hickey et al. US 20230234648 A1.
Regarding claim 9, ‘703 discloses the rack system of claim 1, as discussed above, but does not disclose further comprising a plurality of additional accessory attachment fixtures provided on at least one of the first rail and the second rail.
However, Hickey et al. disclose a rack system (Hickey et al. 24; Hickey et al. Fig. 1A) comprising a plurality of additional accessory attachment fixtures (Hickey et al. 66) provided on at least one of a first rail and a second rail (Hickey et al. 36; Hickey et al. paragraph 0182) (Hickey et al. Fig. 2A; Hickey et al. paragraph 0078).
Therefore, it 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 to combine the rack system of ‘703 with the attachment fixtures on the rails as taught by Hickey et al. with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage of further securing a truck accessory to the rack system (Hickey et al. paragraph 0078), preventing undesired movement between the accessory and the rack system during vehicle motion, as would be known by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 14, ‘703 discloses the rack system of claim 1, as discussed above, but does not disclose further comprising at least one rail system accessory that is configured to couple to at least one of the first rail and the second rail of said rail system, and optionally, the at least one rail system accessory is configured to slidably engage with at least one of the first rail and the second rail of said rail system or forms a waterproof pool liner configured to line the bed of the truck and to retain water therein.
However, Hickey et al. disclose a rack system (Hickey et al. 24; Hickey et al. Fig. 1A) further comprising at least one rail system accessory (Hickey et al. 28) that is configured to couple to at least one of a first rail and a second rail of a rail system (Hickey et al. paragraph 0004), and optionally, the at least one rail system accessory is configured to slidably engage with at least one of the first rail and the second rail of said rail system (Hickey et al. paragraph 0004) or forms a waterproof pool liner configured to line a bed (Hickey et al. 12) of a truck (Hickey et al. 10) and to retain water therein (Hickey et al. paragraphs 0060-0061).
Therefore, it 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 to combine the rack system of ‘703 with the rail system accessory as taught by Hickey et al. with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage of allowing a user to integrate an additional truck accessory to the rack system (Hickey et al. paragraphs 0011-0013), expanding the utility of the rack device, as would be known by one of ordinary skill in the art. Incorporating a rail system accessory such as a tonneau cover to the rack system would be desirable as the tonneau cover may protect items that may be within the truck bed, including the prevention of rainwater from entering the bed (Hickey et al. paragraphs 0060-0061).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huisman US 20210086703 A1 (hereinafter ‘703), in view of Singer US 20210170847 A1.
Regarding claim 10, ‘703 discloses the rack system of claim 1, as discussed above, but ‘703 does not disclose wherein the at least one truck accessory is a collapsible truck bed cap configured to couple to the at least one accessory attachment fixture of said first support structure and said second support structure and configured to cover the bed of the truck when said first support structure is separated from said second support structure in the loaded configuration, and optionally, the collapsible truck bed cap is configured to be rolled-up and secured to at least one of said first support structure and said second support structure when in the unloaded configuration.
However, Singer discloses a truck accessory (Singer 112; Singer Figs. 12-14) that is a collapsible truck bed cap (Singer paragraph 0098) configured to couple to at least one accessory attachment fixture (Singer paragraph 0098) of a first support structure (Singer 28b/30b) and a second support structure (Singer 28c/30c) and configured to cover a bed of a truck when said first support structure is separated from said second support structure in a loaded configuration (Singer paragraph 0060), and optionally, the collapsible truck bed cap is configured to be rolled-up and secured to at least one of said first support structure and said second support structure when in an unloaded configuration (Singer paragraph 0074 and claim 21).
Therefore, it 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 to combine the rack system of ‘703 with the collapsible truck bed cap as taught by Singer with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage of allowing a user to integrate an additional truck accessory to the rack system (Singer paragraph 0004), expanding the utility of the rack device, as would be known by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huisman US 20210086703 A1 (hereinafter ‘703), in view of Pritchard US 20080106111 A1.
Regarding claim 15, ‘703 discloses the rack system of claim 1, as discussed above, but does not disclose further comprising a ladder that extends from the bed of the truck to a surface upon which tires of the truck are supported.
However, Pritchard discloses a ladder (Pritchard 10) that extends from a bed (Pritchard 14) of a truck (Pritchard 12) to a surface upon which tires of the truck are supported (Pritchard Fig. 1D; Pritchard paragraph 0002).
Therefore, it 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 to combine the rack system of ‘703 with the ladder configuration as taught by Pritchard with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage of providing clearance for a user entering truck accessory such as a camper shell (Pritchard paragraph 0004).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-17 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.
Claim 16 has been indicated as containing allowable subject matter primarily for wherein the first end and the second end of at least said first support structure each have a set of rollers attached thereto that are configured to engage with said rail system for slidably positioning said first support structure within said rail system, and optionally, each set of rollers runs along a bottom of the first rail or the second rail and along a first side and second side of the first rail or the second rail to form a U-shape inside the first rail or the second rail.
Claim 17 has been indicated as containing allowable subject matter primarily for wherein each set of rollers includes at least three rollers, wherein a first of the three rollers is configured to be positioned within the first rail or the second rail, a second of the three rollers is configured to be positioned along a first side of the first rail or the second rail, and a third of the three rollers is configured to be positioned along a second side of the first rail or the second rail.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Palumbo et al. US 20230399061 A1 disclose a truck bed system (Palumbo et al. 100; Palumbo et al. Fig. 1C) with side rails that contain rollers (Palumbo et al. paragraph 0049).
Salter et al. US 20230063296 A1 disclose a slidable rack system (Salter et al. Fig. 4) via a rail assembly (Salter et al. 70) comprising a roller and bushing assembly (Salter et al. 76; Salter et al. Fig. 5; Salter et al. paragraph 0049).
However, neither reference discloses the configuration of rollers within the sides of U-shaped rails and their function of allowing a support structure to be slidable along truck bed side walls. These references would not be modified as Palumbo et al. teach a base plate assembly for a truck bed, and Salter et al. teach a separate coupling design.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Petty US 20210129734 A1 disclose a rack system for a truck comprising support structures and cross members designed to carry a variety of truck accessories.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anayansi Santiago whose telephone number is (571)272-3138. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:30AM - 4:30PM.
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.
/Anayansi Santiago/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights