Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/20/25 is noted. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the examiner is considering the information disclosure statement.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 22, 23, 28, and 39 are objected to because they do not currently end with a period.
4. Claim 34 is objected to because reference number “154” should be deleted or in parenthesis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 21-23, 25, 26, 28-34, 36, 37, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marquez (US 9,840,205 B1).
Regarding claim 21, Marquez discloses a mounting assembly (10) coupled to a sidewall (see Figures) of a vehicle bed portion (16, sidewall and vehicle bed portion currently being claimed in combination due to the positive structural recitation “coupled to”), the sidewall defining a top rim (see Figures), the mounting assembly for removably coupling a load or load support structure outside the sidewall (see Figures), the mounting assembly comprising: a portion (12) configured to be secured to the sidewall (via 20/22) and extending outwardly therefrom (see Figures), and defining an engagement location (along 12); wherein the engagement location is positioned outside the bed portion (see Figures 3B, 4-6, and 10-12), the load or load support structure (14, load or load support structure currently being claimed in combination due to the positive structural recitation “is attached”) is attached at the engagement location (see Figures), the load or load support structure is positioned outside the sidewall (see Figures 9-12), and the load or load support structure remains outside a vertical plane extending through the top rim of the sidewall (see Figures 10-12, where a user can choose to leave the load or load support in the position shown).
Regarding claim 22, Marquez discloses the mounting assembly of claim 21, wherein the load or load support structure extends above the level of the top rim (see Figure 9).
Regarding claim 23, Marquez discloses the mounting assembly of claim 21, wherein the mounting assembly is permanently or removably secured to the sidewall (via 22).
Regarding claim 25, Marquez discloses the mounting assembly of claim 21, wherein the engagement location is selectively movable relative to the sidewall (see pivoting in Figures).
Regarding claim 26, Marquez discloses the mounting assembly of claim 25, wherein the engagement location is selectively movable outwardly or inwardly relative to the sidewall (see Figure 9).
Regarding claim 28, Marquez discloses the mounting assembly of claim 25, wherein the engagement location is selectively movable up or down by a pivoting motion relative to the sidewall (see Figures 9).
Regarding claim 29, Marquez discloses the mounting assembly of claim 21, wherein the load or load support structure remains in a stationary location relative to the sidewall after attachment to the engagement location (see Figure 10, where a user can choose to leave the load or load support in the position shown).
Regarding claim 30, Marquez discloses the mounting assembly of claim 21, wherein the engagement location is positioned at or below the top rim and the load or load support structure attaches to the engagement location (see Figure 10).
Regarding claim 31, Marquez discloses the mounting assembly of claim 21, wherein the portion is in a fixed orientation and is at least partially cantilevered from the top rim, and is spaced away from the sidewall (see Figure 5).
Regarding claim 32, Marquez discloses a mounting assembly (10) for removably attaching a load or load support mechanism to a vehicle having a bed portion, the bed portion including at least one sidewall defining a top rim, the mounting assembly comprising: a first portion (20/22) positioned on the top rim and extending outwardly therefrom (top rim being claimed in combination due to the positive structure recitation “positioned on”); a second portion (12) coupled with the first portion and extending outwardly from the first portion (see Figures), the first and second portions configured to be selectively adjustable (see Figure 9) relative to or permanently secured to the at least one sidewall (a user could also choose to never remove the Marquez assembly), and together form a rigid structure cantilevered from the top rim (see Figure 5), and the second portion defining an engagement location (surface of 12) to support the load or load support mechanism (14); wherein the engagement location is positioned outside the bed portion (see Figures 3B, 4-6, and 10-12), and the load or load support mechanism (14, currently being claimed in combination due to the positive structural recitation “is attached”) is attached at the engagement location (see Figures), the load or load support mechanism is positioned outside the at least one sidewall (see Figures 9-12), and the load or load support mechanism remains in a stationary location relative to the at least one sidewall after attachment to the engagement location (see Figures 10-12, where a user can choose to leave the load or load support in the position shown).
Regarding claim 33, Marquez discloses a mounting assembly as defined in claim 32, wherein the engagement location is at or below the top rim (see Figure 10).
Regarding claim 34, Marquez discloses a mounting assembly as defined in claim 33, wherein the load or load support mechanism is positioned outside a vertical plane extending through the top rim of the at least one sidewall (see Figures 10-12).
Regarding claim 36, Marquez discloses a mounting assembly as defined in claim 33, wherein the engagement location is selectively movable relative to the at least one sidewall (see Figure 9).
Regarding claim 37, Marquez discloses a mounting assembly as defined in claim 36, wherein the engagement location is selectively movable outwardly or inwardly relative to the at least one sidewall (see Figure 9).
Regarding claim 39, Marquez discloses a mounting assembly as defined in claim 36, wherein the engagement location is selectively movable up or down by a pivoting motion relative to the at least one sidewall (see Figure 9).
8. Claims 21-23, 25, 27, 29-34, 36, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Farr (US 10,106,095 B1).
Regarding claim 21, Farr discloses a mounting assembly (10) coupled to a sidewall (see Figures) of a vehicle bed portion (14, sidewall and vehicle bed portion currently being claimed in combination due to the positive structural recitation “coupled to”), the sidewall defining a top rim (see Figures), the mounting assembly for removably coupling a load or load support structure outside the sidewall (see Figures), the mounting assembly comprising: a portion (26) configured to be secured to the sidewall (via 16/20) and extending outwardly therefrom (see Figures), and defining an engagement location (within 26); wherein the engagement location is positioned outside the bed portion (see Figures), the load or load support structure (18, load or load support structure currently being claimed in combination due to the positive structural recitation “is attached”) is attached at the engagement location (see Figures), the load or load support structure is positioned outside the sidewall (see Figures), and the load or load support structure remains outside a vertical plane extending through the top rim of the sidewall (see Figures).
Regarding claim 22, Farr discloses the mounting assembly of claim 21, wherein the load or load support structure extends above the level of the top rim (see Figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 23, Farr discloses the mounting assembly of claim 21, wherein the mounting assembly is permanently or removably secured to the sidewall (via 20).
Regarding claim 25, Farr discloses the mounting assembly of claim 21, wherein the engagement location is selectively movable relative to the sidewall (via 38).
Regarding claim 27, Farr discloses the mounting assembly of claim 26, wherein the mounting assembly defines a plurality of apertures (34), and the engagement location (26) is selectively engageable with the plurality of apertures to adjust its position relative to the sidewall.
Regarding claim 29, Farr discloses the mounting assembly of claim 21, wherein the load or load support structure remains in a stationary location relative to the sidewall after attachment to the engagement location (see Figures).
Regarding claim 30, Farr discloses the mounting assembly of claim 21, wherein the engagement location is positioned at or below the top rim and the load or load support structure attaches to the engagement location (see Figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 31, Farr discloses the mounting assembly of claim 21, wherein the portion (vertical opening portion of 26) is in a fixed orientation and is at least partially cantilevered (attached at only one side thereof) from the top rim (via 16/20), and is spaced away from the sidewall (see Figures).
Regarding claim 32, Farr discloses a mounting assembly (10) for removably attaching a load or load support mechanism to a vehicle (14) having a bed portion, the bed portion including at least one sidewall defining a top rim, the mounting assembly comprising: a first portion (16/20) positioned on the top rim and extending outwardly therefrom (top rim being claimed in combination due to the positive structure recitation “positioned on”); a second portion (26) coupled with the first portion and extending outwardly from the first portion (see Figures), the first and second portions configured to be selectively adjustable (via 34) relative to or permanently secured to the at least one sidewall (a user could also choose to never remove the Farr assembly), and together form a rigid structure cantilevered from the top rim (see Figures 1 and 2), and the second portion defining an engagement location (within 26) to support the load or load support mechanism (18); wherein the engagement location is positioned outside the bed portion (see Figures), and the load or load support mechanism (18, currently being claimed in combination due to the positive structural recitation “is attached”) is attached at the engagement location (see Figures), the load or load support mechanism is positioned outside the at least one sidewall (see Figures), and the load or load support mechanism remains in a stationary location relative to the at least one sidewall after attachment to the engagement location (see Figures).
Regarding claim 33, Farr discloses a mounting assembly as defined in claim 32, wherein the engagement location is at or below the top rim (see Figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 34, Farr discloses a mounting assembly as defined in claim 33, wherein the load or load support mechanism is positioned outside a vertical plane extending through the top rim of the at least one sidewall (see Figures).
Regarding claim 36, Farr discloses a mounting assembly as defined in claim 33, wherein the engagement location is selectively movable (via 34) relative to the at least one sidewall.
Regarding claim 38, Farr discloses a mounting assembly as defined in claim 37, wherein the mounting assembly defines a plurality of apertures (34), and the engagement location is selectively engageable with the plurality of apertures to adjust its position relative to the at least one sidewall.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. Claims 24, 35, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farr (US 10,106,095 B1) in view of Palermo (US 8,157,229 B2).
Regarding claim 24, Farr discloses the mounting assembly of claim 21, but fails to disclose wherein a cover component is positioned at least partially on the top rim of the sidewall, and the portion of the mounting assembly is separate from the cover component and positioned between the cover component and the top rim.
Regarding claim 35, Farr discloses a mounting assembly as defined in claim 33, but fails to disclose wherein when the vehicle is configured with a cover component mounted on the bed portion, the load or load support mechanism is positioned outside the cover component.
Regarding claim 40, Farr discloses a mounting assembly as defined in claim 32, but fails to disclose wherein a cover component is mounted at least in part on the top rim, and the first portion is separate from the cover component and positioned between the cover component and the top rim.
Farr fails to disclose a cover component mounted on the top rim such that the mounting assembly is positioned between the rim and the cover. Palermo teaches a similar mounting assembly over the top rim of a vehicle bed and teaches that a cover can still be used over the bed even with the mounting assembly in place on the top rim (see end of Abstract). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided a cover over the bed of Farr such the mounting assembly was between the cover and the rim, as taught by Palermo, the motivation being to protect the contents of the bed from the elements.
Double Patenting
11. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
12. A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
13. The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
14. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
15. Claims 21, 23, 25-31, 34, and 39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,319,239 in view of Marquez (US 9,840,205 B1).
Regarding claims 21, 23, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 34, the patented claims recite the presently claimed structure except for the load remaining outside a vertical plane extending through a top rim of the sidewall. Marquez teaches that is was already known to use a mounting assembly like that of the patented claims to support a load (14) with the load remaining outside a vertical plane extending through a top rim of the sidewall (see Figures). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have used the mounting assembly of the patented claims to support a load remaining outside a vertical plane extending through a top rim of the sidewall, as taught by Marquez.
Regarding claims 28 and 39, the patented claims as modified above would include a mounting assembly of claims 25 and 36, but so far fails to include the engagement location being pivotal. Marquez teaches that it was already known in the art for such an engagement surface to be pivotal (see Figures). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have made the engagement location of the modified patented claims pivotal, as taught by Marquez, the motivation being to allow a user to adjust the position of the load as needed.
16. Claim 22 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,319,239 in view of Marquez (US 9,840,205 B1) as applied above, further in view of Farr (US 10,106,095 B1).
Regarding claim 22, the patented claims as modified above would include a mounting assembly of claim 21, but so far fails to include the load support structure extending above the level of the top rim. Farr teaches that it was already known for a load support structure (18) to extend above the level of the top rim. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the mounting assembly of the modified patented claims with a load support structure extending above the level of the top rim, where such design was already known, as shown by Farr, and it would allow for the securement of taller items.
17. Claim 24 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,319,239 in view of Marquez (US 9,840,205 B1) as applied above, further in view of Palermo (US 8,157,229 B2).
Regarding claim 24, the patented claims as modified above would include a mounting assembly of claim 21, but so far fails to include a cover as claimed. Palermo teaches a similar mounting assembly over the top rim of a vehicle bed and teaches that a cover can still be used over the bed even with the mounting assembly in place on the top rim (see end of Abstract). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided a cover over the bed of the modified patented claims such the mounting assembly was between the cover and the rim, as taught by Palermo, the motivation being to protect the contents of the bed from the elements.
18. Claims 32, 33, and 36-38, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,319,239. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the presently recited structure can also be found in the patented claims.
19. Claims 35 and 40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,319,239 in view of Palermo (US 8,157,229 B2).
Regarding claims 35 and 40, the patented claims include a mounting assembly of claims 33 and 32, but fail to include a cover as claimed. Palermo teaches a similar mounting assembly over the top rim of a vehicle bed and teaches that a cover can still be used over the bed even with the mounting assembly in place on the top rim (see end of Abstract). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided a cover over the bed of the patented claims such the mounting assembly was between the cover and the rim, as taught by Palermo, the motivation being to protect the contents of the bed from the elements.
Conclusion
20. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Steen (US 6766913), Scott (US 4212417), Laborde (US 10882458), Marchlewski (US 10427614), Moore (US 5255951), and Bryngelson (US 4116373) all disclose mounting assemblies atop a bed rim and next to a bed wall.
21. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN MATTHEW LARSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8649. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-3pm. 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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at (571)272-4544. 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.
/JUSTIN M LARSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734 9/25/26
