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
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.
(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) 1-5 and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by DuPlessis (US 3620235 A).
Regarding Claim 1, DuPlessis teaches a vehicle sleeping system, comprising: a vehicle roof panel (Fig. 1 vehicle roof panel); a mounting system (Fig. 1 elements 6) secured to the vehicle roof panel; and a sleeping platform (Fig. 1 element 4) supported on the mounting system, the sleeping platform moveable between a folded position and an unfolded position (Shown in transition between Fig. 1 and Fig. 3), the sleeping platform including a base portion (Fig. 1 elements 1 and 2) and support legs (Fig. 1 elements 19), the support legs configured to attach to attachment points on a vehicle hood when in the unfolded position (Shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 2, DuPlessis teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses the base portion includes a first base section (Fig. 1 element 2) and a second base section (Fig. 1 element 1) that is pivotably attached to the first base section (Fig. 1 shows folded position).
Regarding Claim 3, DuPlessis teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 2 and further discloses the support legs each include a first end and an opposite second end, the first end pivotably attached to a first side of the first base section at a first location, the second end releasably attached to the first side of the first base section at a second location the support legs each include a first end and an opposite second end, the first end pivotably attached to a first side of the first base section at a first location, the second end releasably attached to the first side of the first base section at a second location (Fig. 5 shows the attachments of support legs 19).
Regarding Claim 4, DuPlessis teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 2 and further discloses cross bars attached to a first side of the second base section, the cross bars configured to support the sleeping platform above the vehicle roof panel (Fig. 6 elements 26 and 28).
Regarding Claim 5, DuPlessis teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 4 and further discloses a first one of the cross bars is positioned on a forward portion of the second base section (Fig. 6 element 26), a second one of the cross bars is positioned on a middle portion of the second base section (Fig. 6 element 25), and a third one of the cross bars is positioned on a rear portion of the second base section (Fig. 6 element 28).
Regarding Claim 8, DuPlessis teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 4 and further discloses a clamping mechanism provided on each end of the cross bars, the clamping mechanism configured to secure the cross bars to the mounting system (“other types of bolts or clamp means may be utilized to advantage to effect the attachment of the camper unit to the vehicle” 59-61).
Regarding Claim 9, DuPlessis teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 2 and further discloses a cover portion of the sleeping platform, wherein the cover portion is attached to and extends across a second side of the first base section and the second base section (Fig. 1 element 14).
Regarding Claim 10, DuPlessis teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 9 and further discloses in the folded position, the first base section is folded against the second base section, and the cover portion is sandwiched between the first base section and the second base section (Shown in Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 11, DuPlessis teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 9 and further discloses in the unfolded position, the first base section extends outward away from the second base section over the vehicle hood, and an end of each support leg is releasably attachable to one of the attachment points to hold the first base section over the vehicle hood (Shown in Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 12-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by DuPlessis (US 3620235 A).
Regarding Claim 12, DuPlessis teaches a vehicle sleeping system, comprising: a vehicle roof panel (Fig. 1 vehicle roof panel); a mounting system (Fig. 1 elements 6) secured to the vehicle roof panel; and a sleeping platform (Fig. 1 element 4) supported on the mounting system, the sleeping platform including a base portion having a first base section (Fig. 1 element 2) and a second base section (Fig. 1 element 1) that is pivotably attached to the first base section, the sleeping platform moveable between a folded position in which the first base section is folded against the second base section and an unfolded position in which the first base section extends outward away from the second base section over a vehicle hood (Shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 13, DuPlessis teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 12 and further discloses support legs of the sleeping platform, the support legs each including a first end and an opposite second end, the first end pivotably attached to a first side of the first base section at a first location, the second end releasably attached to the first side of the first base section at a second location (Fig. 5 shows the attachments of support legs 19).
Regarding Claim 14, DuPlessis teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 13 and further discloses the support legs are configured to attach to attachment points on the vehicle hood when in the unfolded position (Shown in Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 15, DuPlessis teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 14 and further discloses in the unfolded position, the second end of each support leg is releasably attachable to one of the attachment points to hold first base section over the vehicle hood (Shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 16, DuPlessis teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 12 and further discloses a cover portion of the sleeping platform, wherein the cover portion is attached to and extends across the first base section and the second base section (Fig. 1 element 14).
Regarding Claim 17, DuPlessis teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 16 and further discloses in the folded position, the cover portion is sandwiched between the first base section and the second base section (Shown in Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 18, DuPlessis teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 16 and further discloses in the unfolded position, the cover portion is expanded outward by cover frame bars (Shown in Fig. 1).
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.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DuPlessis (US 3620235 A) in view of Tatro (US 11130437 B1).
Regarding Claim 6, DuPlessis teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
DuPlessis fails to explicitly teach a sunroof panel configured to extend and retract between a fully closed position in which a sunroof opening is covered and a plurality of open positions in which at least a portion of the sunroof opening is uncovered, wherein the base portion includes an opening that extends through the second base section, the opening sized to correspond to the uncovered portion of the sunroof opening.
However, Tatro teaches a sunroof panel configured to extend and retract between a fully closed position in which a sunroof opening is covered and a plurality of open positions in which at least a portion of the sunroof opening is uncovered, wherein the base portion includes an opening that extends through the second base section, the opening sized to correspond to the uncovered portion of the sunroof opening (Fig. 15 element 1506; “The passthrough may allow a rider inside the vehicle to access or move into the collapsible shelter system 1500, in coordination with the sunroof of the vehicle” Col. 19 lines 17-19).
DuPlessis and Tatro are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of vehicle mounted sleeping structures. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sleeping system of DuPlessis to have the sunroof opening as disclosed by Tatro. Doing so would allow access into the sleeping system without the user having to leave the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 7, DuPlessis and Tatro teach the limitations set forth in Claim 6.
Tatro further discloses a seal component positioned around an inner perimeter of the opening, wherein the seal component extends from the opening between the second cross bar and the third cross bar (“a foam donut-shaped seal is positioned around the sunroof of the vehicle prior to the placement of the collapsible shelter system 104 onto the vehicle” Col. 19 lines 60-62; Fig. 15).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DuPlessis (US 3620235 A) in view of Tatro (US 11130437 B1).
Regarding Claim 19, DuPlessis teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 12.
DuPlessis fails to explicitly teach a sunroof panel configured to extend and retract between a fully closed position in which a sunroof opening is covered and a plurality of open positions in which at least a portion of the sunroof opening is uncovered, wherein the base portion includes an opening that extends through the second base section, the opening sized to correspond to the uncovered portion of the sunroof opening.
However, Tatro teaches a sunroof panel configured to extend and retract between a fully closed position in which a sunroof opening is covered and a plurality of open positions in which at least a portion of the sunroof opening is uncovered, wherein the base portion includes an opening that extends through the second base section, the opening sized to correspond to the uncovered portion of the sunroof opening (Fig. 15 element 1506; “The passthrough may allow a rider inside the vehicle to access or move into the collapsible shelter system 1500, in coordination with the sunroof of the vehicle” Col. 19 lines 17-19).
DuPlessis and Tatro are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of vehicle mounted sleeping structures. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sleeping system of DuPlessis to have the sunroof opening as disclosed by Tatro. Doing so would allow access into the sleeping system without the user having to leave the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 20, DuPlessis and Tatro teach the limitations set forth in Claim 19.
Tatro further discloses the opening is configured to allow access to the sleeping platform from within a passenger compartment of a vehicle “The passthrough may allow a rider inside the vehicle to access or move into the collapsible shelter system 1500, in coordination with the sunroof of the vehicle” Col. 19 lines 17-19).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC ACOSTA whose telephone number is (571)272-4886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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.
/E.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3644
/Nicholas McFall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights