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 .
Examiner’s Comments
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 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.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element T should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
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. 111(a) 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. 15/454,326, 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 prior filed application does not reference that which is newly disclosed in the continuation-in-part namely the features of the prop base including a top surface that is positioned at an acute angle away from the underside surface of the at least one panel section. The disclosure of 15/454,326 as originally filed makes no mention to the acute angle nor does the application state the drawings are to scale. The disclosures of each of 62/306,131; 15/454,326; 17/179,962; and 18/365,569, as originally filed, does not include the limitations that the clip includes an “opening” positioned transverse to an underside of the panel and a “clip section” configured to be positioned on an underside of the prop rod when the clip holds the portion of the prop rod and the panel is in the lowered position ([0116] and all of the independent claims).
For the purposes of examination, it should be noted that the effective filing date for the current application will be 1/10/25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, US Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (‘666) in view of Bogard (6227602) and Dylewski, II et al. (2017/0267168).
For claims 2, 4, and 6, Xu (2016/0114666) discloses a tonneau cover (114) that covers at least a portion of a bed section of a pickup truck (100), the tonneau cover comprising:
at least one rectangularly-shaped panel (116,118,122) composed of a top surface and a bottom surface (FIG.1B-1H);
wherein the at least one rectangularly-shaped panel (116,118) is movable between an upright position (FIG.1G) and a lowered position (FIG.1C,D,E) on sidewalls of the bed section of the pickup truck;
wherein when the panel is located in the lowered position the bottom surface is configured to face the bed section of the pickup truck (FIG.1C); and
at least one prop rod (126 in FIG.1F; 800 in FIGS.8A-G; rod 930 in FIG.9C).
Xu further provides a second prop rod (126) on an opposite side of the vehicle (FIG.1F).
PNG
media_image1.png
263
475
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
300
595
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Xu (2016/0114666) discloses a rod storage mechanism (not shown, [0058], where rod may be “snapped into” or magnetically secured) wherein the rod storage mechanism is configured to selectively receive and hold a portion of the first rod.
Xu is silent on the specifics of the prop rod storage mechanism into which the prop rod is “snapped” and specifically lacks:
at least one clip and a second clip as recited, attached to the bottom surface of the at least one rectangularly- shaped panel, configured to selectively receive and hold a portion of the at least one prop rod; and having an opening and clip section.
Bogard teaches a conventional prop rod storage mechanism in the form of a clip (90, FIGS.13) attached to an undersurface of a panel for securely holding a rod (71) to the panel when not in use. When the rod unclips from the clip (90) it pivots laterally across the undersurface of the panel for propping open the panel in an upright position (FIG.2).
PNG
media_image3.png
574
572
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Bogard does not disclose nor show an enlarged view of the clip (90).
However, Dylewski, II et al. (2017/0267168) teach such a clip (24,26) as seen in FIG.3 for securely holding a tubular component (‘rod’) when not in use.
PNG
media_image4.png
213
609
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The clip of Dylewski, II et al. provide an opening (FIG.3) positioned transverse to an underside (surface) of the panel/wall to which the clip is attached and
a clip section configured to be positioned on an underside of the tubular component when the at least one clip holds the portion of the tubular component.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided a clip as taught by Bogard for use on an underside of the at least one rectangularly-shaped panel of Xu and further to have provided the clip being of the type as taught by Dylewski, II et al. in order to “snap” (and hold/store) the prop rod in place when the panel is in the lowered position and the prop rod is not in use. Doing so would allow the prop rod to be stored out of the way while allowing convenient access thereto when the panel is moved to the upright position and in need of support.
For claims 3, 5, and 7, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided a second clip for Xu, as modified, identical to the first, for use with the second prop rod on the opposite side of the vehicle as a mere duplication of part and to allow the second prop rod to similarly be conveniently stored when not in use. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) The court has held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See also MPEP 2144.04(iv)(B) which provides that mere duplication of an essential working part of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HILARY L GUTMAN whose telephone number is 571.272.6662. 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, PAUL DICKSON can be reached on 571.272.7742. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HILARY L GUTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612B
Prosecution Insights