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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 3/10/26. These drawings are approved.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “frame” (claim 1, line 2; claim 21, line 2; and claim 22, line 2) the “factory bed” (claim 1, line 4) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-19 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The recitation of the custom bed being attached “directly” to the frame is not supported by the original disclosure and is therefore considered to be new matter.
In claim 1, the last two lines, the recitation of the range for the custom bed height in the instance it is less than 1.0 inches is new matter. The original disclosure only provides support for heights as low as 1.0 inches. See original claim 6.
In claim 4, the recitation that the “custom bed is wide enough to receive the camper in a bed of the custom bed” is new matter. There is no mention of a custom bed width or how such width relates to a camper in the original disclosure.
In claim 8, the recitation of the range in the instance that the that the factory wheel travel is greater than 10 inches is new matter. The original disclosure only provides support for wheel travel up to 10 inches. See original claim 8.
In claim 11, the recitation of the range in the instance that the departure angle is greater than 25 degrees up to 40 degrees is new matter. The original disclosure only provides support for departure angles from 10 degrees to 25 degrees. See para. [0033], line 5.
In claim 12, a portion of the recited range of the custom departure angle being 10 degrees to 30 degrees greater than the factory departure angle is new matter. The factory departure angle is disclosed in para. [0033], line 5, as being 10 degrees to 25 degrees. That means that the original disclosure must support a custom departure range of 20 degrees to 55 degrees to support the new claim language. However, the lowest end of the range of angles for the custom departure angle as disclosed on line 6 of para. [0033] is 30 degrees. Thus, the instance of the range recited in claim 12 where the resulting custom angle is from 20 degrees to less than 30 degrees is new matter.
The recitation on the second to last line of claim 16 that the custom wheel travel is “equal” to a factory wheel travel is new matter since this feature has no support in the original disclosure.
In claim 16, the last line, the recitation of the range in the instance that the that the custom wheel travel is greater than 14 inches is new matter. The original disclosure only provides support for custom wheel travel up to 14 inches. See original claim 16.
The recitation in claim 1, lines 8-11 of “a custom bed height that is approximately equal to or lower than the factory bed height and wherein the custom bed height is a height of the deck above the frame when the custom bed is attached to the frame” is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, since the factory bed height is defined in the specification by association of a factory bed that is not shown (para. [0031], line 2) with a frame that is not shown (para. 0024], line 1), and the custom bed height is defined by a height above the frame that is not shown (para. 0024], line 1), it is unclear how the custom bed is constructed differently from the factory bed so that any comparison between the respective bed heights of the custom bed and the factory bed can be made. The specification fails to convey how a factory bed and a custom bed are constructed and attached to a frame so that a comparison between a factory bed height and a custom bed height can be made, especially in the instance where the custom bed height is lower than the original bed height.
With respect to claims 10 and 13, it is not disclosed, nor shown, exactly where the back overhang of the vehicle is located with respect to the original bed to define an original departure angle that is smaller than that of the custom departure angle of the custom bed, especially by way of the custom bed having a lower box attached to the deck behind the overhang, where the lower box comprises the end of the vehicle at the back overhang of the vehicle. If the only difference between the original bed and the custom bed is the provision of the lower box 148 as shown in Figure 4, where the original bed has no such lower box, then the overhang would be the same for the custom bed and the original bed since the back overhang is the same. In this instance, there would be no difference between the original bed departure angle and the custom bed departure angle. The custom bed departure angle being larger than the original bed departure angle is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 21, lines 3 and 4, the recitation of the custom bed and the deck being attached “directly” to the frame is not supported by the original disclosure and is therefore considered to be new matter. On lines 7-8, the recitation of the range for the custom bed height in the instance it is less than 1.0 inches is new matter. The original disclosure only provides support for heights as low as 1.0 inches. See original claim 6. On lines 3 and 4 from the end, the recitation of the range in the instance that the custom wheel travel is greater than 10 inches is new matter. The original disclosure only supports a range from 6 to 14 inches. See para. [0033], line 4. On the last two lines, the recitation of the range in the instance that the fender assembly distance is greater than 12 inches is new matter. The original disclosure only supports a range from 4 to 12 inches. See para. [0044], the last line.
In claim 22, lines 3 and 4, the recitation of the custom bed and the deck being attached “directly” to the frame is not supported by the original disclosure and is therefore considered to be new matter. On lines 7-8, the recitation of the range for the custom bed height in the instance it is less than 1.0 inches is new matter. The original disclosure only provides support for heights as low as 1.0 inches. See original claim 6. On lines 16, the recitation that the “upper box assembly distance is at least 10 inches” is new matter as it lacks support in the original disclosure. On lines 3 and 4 from the end, the recitation of the range in the instance that the custom wheel travel is greater than 10 inches is new matter. The original disclosure only supports a range from 6 to 14 inches. See para. [0033], line 4. On the last two lines, the recitation of the range in the instance that the fender assembly distance is greater than 12 inches is new matter. The original disclosure only supports a range from 4 to 12 inches. See para. [0044], the last line.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
On lines 4-5 and the last four lines, it is unclear how the custom bed height can be lower than the original bed height when each are defined as being the height above the same frame.
In claims 10-15, it is unclear how the custom bed can have a departure angle greater than that of the original bed for the reasons given above with respect to the rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Furthermore, In claim 14, it is unclear how the degree of angle of the lower edge of the lower box can increase the custom departure angle when the departure angle is defined between where the tire mees the ground and the back overhang of the vehicle as indicated at element 128 in Fig. 1. Any angle of the lower edge of the lower box which does not intersect the angle of inclination line 132 in Fig. 1 would have no effect on the custom departure angle.
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 (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 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 1, 2, 3, 10-12 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stocks et al. US 10,029,603 in view of Albertini et al. US 5,845,952.
Stocks et al. disclose a system including a truck chassis (108; Figs. 2C, 3 and 4) which includes a framework to support a portion of a truck bed unit (110; Figs. 2C, 3 and 4), as disclosed in col. 3, lines 33-39. The truck bed unit (110) may include a box bed as shown in Figs. 3 and 4 (col. 3, line 56) or a flatbed as shown in Fig. 2C (col. 3, lines 59-60) which are interchangeably attached to the chassis (col. 5, lines 13-14). Additional types of truck bed units (110) are disclosed in column 4, lines 9-16. Any one of these truck bed units (110) may be attached to the chassis (108) when the truck (102; Figs. 2C, 3 and 4) is received from the factory or may be attached to the chassis (108) by the consumer if the truck (102) is purchased from the factory without a truck bed unit thereon. In either case, the first type of any of the truck bed units (110) that is attached to the chassis is considered to be the “original truck bed”. With the “original truck bed” being defined in this manner, the first type of truck bed unit (110) that is attached to the chassis (108) may be the flatbed truck bed unit (110), as shown in Fig. 2C. Therefore, the flatbed truck bed unit (110) in Fig. 2C is considered to be the “original bed” which is interchangeable with the box bed truck bed unit (110) shown in Figs. 3 and 4, where such box bed truck bed unit, when interchanged with the flatbed truck bed unit, is considered to be a “custom bed” in that it replaces the original flatbed truck bed unit and has different features, such as sidewalls which form a box, or “customizations” as compared to the original flatbed truck bed unit. Since both the flatbed truck bed unit (110; Fig. 2C) and the box bed truck bed unit (Fig. 3 and 4) can be selectively attached to the chassis (108) by way of the same “extensions” (116; Figs. 2C , 3 and 4) configuration, the custom bed height is considered to be equal to the original bed height. Therefore, with the original bed and custom bed defined in this manner, Stocks et al. is considered to disclose certain features of claim 1 as follows:
Regarding claim 1, Stocks et al. discloses:
A vehicle system comprising:
a vehicle (102; Figs. 2C, 3 and 4) comprising a frame (as pointed out in annotated Fig. 2C below) wherein the flatbed (110; as pointed out in annotated Fig. 2C below) having a factory bed with a factory bed height above the frame (as pointed out in annotated Fig. 2C below) and
a custom bed (the box bed truck bed unit 110 shown in Figs. 3 and 4) directly (in that the custom bed is attached to the frame (as pointed out in annotated Fig. 2C below) by mounting plates (214; Fig. 2C below) with no other structures therebetween) attached to the frame (as pointed out in annotated Fig. 2C below), the custom bed comprising a deck (as is configured identically to that of the deck of the flatbed as identified in annotated Fig. 2C below) attached to the frame (as pointed out in annotated Fig. 2C below), wherein the deck defines a custom bed height (above the frame) that is approximately equal to the original bed height (since both the flatbed truck bed unit (110; Fig. 2C) and the box bed truck bed unit (110; Fig. 3 and 4) can be selectively attached to the frame by way of the same “extensions” (116; Figs. 2C , 3 and 4) the configurations are interchangeable (as disclosed in col. 6, lines 12-14) so that the custom bed height is considered to be equal to the original bed height), and wherein the custom bed height is a height of the deck above the frame when the custom bed is attached to the frame.
PNG
media_image1.png
721
833
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the truck bed unit 110 of Stocks et al. may be a camper (column 4, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 3, the “camper” (column 4, lines 1-4) is also considered to be a “topper” as broadly as recited.
Regarding claim 1, Stocks et al. do not disclose that the deck has at least one box for storage attached to the deck above the deck, that the factory bed height is about 1.0 inches to about 4.0 inches or that the custom bed height is less than or equal to about 4.0 inches.
Regarding claim 18, Stocks et al. do not further disclose that the at least one box comprises at least one upper box attached to the deck, wherein a bottom of the at least one upper box is positioned an upper box distance above the deck.
Regarding claim 19, Stocks et al. do not further disclose that the at least one box comprises a plurality of upper boxes attached to the deck and a plurality of lower boxes attached to the deck, wherein the plurality of upper boxes and the plurality of lower boxes are removably attached to the deck such that the plurality of upper boxes and the plurality of lower boxes are modular.
However, Albertini et al. disclose a customized box bed truck bed unit (see annotated Fig. 1 below) with a deck (16; Fig. 1) and at least one box for storage (see annotated Fig. 1 below) attached to the deck above the deck (16; Fig. 1), where the at least one box comprises at least one upper box (see annotated Fig. 1 below) attached to the deck (16; Fig. 1), wherein a bottom of the at least one upper box is positioned an upper box distance (as illustrated in annotated Fig. 1 below) above the deck (16; Fig. 1) and where the at least one box comprises a plurality of upper boxes (see annotated Fig. 1 below) attached to the deck and a plurality of lower boxes (see annotated Fig. 1 below) attached to the deck (16; Fig. 1), wherein the plurality of upper boxes and the plurality of lower boxes are removably attached to the deck (in that they can be removable as desired, for example for repair or replacement) such that the plurality of upper boxes and the plurality of lower boxes are modular.
PNG
media_image2.png
776
1063
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skill in the art is someone presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. The Albertini et al. reference is considered to be relevant art in that the Albertini et al. reference is in the same field of endeavor, namely that which pertains to vehicle bed constructions, as the Stocks et al. reference.
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 provide the deck of Stocks et al. with the storage box arrangement, as recited in claims 1, 18 and 19, of the instant invention, of Albertini et al. attached to the deck with a reasonable expectation of success in order to more easily transport a variety of items.
In addition, Section 2144.04 IV. A. of the MPEP sets forth the Federal Circuit case of In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), which held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
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 construct the factory bed height of Stocks et al., as modified by Albertini et al., to be about 1.0 inches to about 4.0 inches with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Finally, 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 construct the custom bed height of Stocks et al., as modified by Albertini et al., to be less than or equal to about 4.0 inches with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 10, the vehicle system of Stocks et al., as modified by Albertini et al., has the same rear lower edge or overhang construction whether supporting an original bed or custom bed configuration (see Figure 3). Therefore, the departure angle (see annotated Fig. 3 below) defined as an angle between grade and a line drawn between a back wheel and an end of the vehicle at a back overhang of the vehicle, is equal for the factory departure angle and the custom departure angle.
PNG
media_image3.png
630
946
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Stocks et al., as modified by Albertini et al. and further modified using Gardner with respect to claim 1, disclose an original departure angle, but does not disclose the exact angle thereof to be about 15 degrees to about 40 degrees.
However, section 2144.04 IV. A. of the MPEP sets forth the Federal Circuit case of In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), which held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
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 construct the original departure angle of Stocks et al., as modified by Albertini et al. and further modified using Gardner with respect to claim 1, to be about 15 degrees to about 40 degrees with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 12, Stocks et al., as modified by Albertini et al., disclose a custom departure angle, but does not disclose that the custom departure angle is about 10 degrees to 30 degrees greater than the factory departure angle.
However, section 2144.04 IV. A. of the MPEP sets forth the Federal Circuit case of In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), which held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
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 construct the custom departure angle of Stocks et al., as modified by Albertini et al., to be about 10 degrees to 30 degrees greater than the factory departure angle with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 17, Stocks et al., as modified by Albertini et al., disclose a custom departure angle, but does not disclose that the custom departure angle is about 30 degrees to about 75 degrees.
However, section 2144.04 IV. A. of the MPEP sets forth the Federal Circuit case of In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), which held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
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 construct the custom departure angle of Stocks et al., as modified by Albertini et al., to be 30 degrees to about 75 degrees with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).+
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stocks et al. US 10,029,603 in view of Albertini et al. US 5,845,952, as applied above to claim 1 and further in view of Baird US 2,788,238.
Regarding claim 4, Stocks et al., in view of Albertini et al., disclose that the truck bed unit (110; Fig. 3; a custom bed in the form of a box type truck bed) of Stocks et al. may be a camper (column 4, lines 1-4), however Stocks et al., in view of Albertini et al., do not disclose that the custom bed has a width wide enough to receive the camper in a bed of the custom bed.
Notwithstanding, Baird discloses a box type truck bed (A; Fig. 1) which has a width sufficient to receive a camper shelter (col. 2, line 30) in a bed thereof as shown in Figure 1.
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 construct the bed of the custom bed of Stocks et al., in view of Albertini et al., with a width sufficient to receive the camper in a bed thereof as taught by Baird with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide an additional feature which permits users to seek shelter in the event of inclement weather.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stocks et al. US 10,029,603 in view of Albertini et al. US 5,845,952.
Regarding claim 7, the various embodiments of the vehicle system of Stocks et al., as modified by Albertini et al., including the factory bed configuration and the custom bed configuration (as discussed above with respect to claim 1), may have suspension components (see column 3, lines 26-28 of Stocks et al.) where a vehicle’s suspension naturally has a suspension stroke resulting in a certain wheel travel. Thus, Stocks et al., as modified by Albertini et al., is considered to have a factory wheel travel and a custom wheel travel.
However, Stocks et al., as modified by Albertini et al., do not disclose that the a factory wheel travel and a custom wheel travel are equal.
Notwithstanding, the factory wheel travel and the custom wheel travel would be equal if a range of the weight of loads to be transported were the same for each configuration.
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 construct the suspension and resulting factory wheel travel and custom wheel travel of Stocks et al., as modified by Albertini et al., where the same range of loads can be carried in each configuration, to be equal with a reasonable expectation of success since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges (the range of loads to be carried in this instance) involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation would be that a single type of suspension can be utilized for each configuration when the same range of loads is to be carried to obviate the need for an adjustable suspension.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Stocks et al., as modified by Albertini et al., do not disclose the equal factory wheel travel and the custom wheel travel being greater than or equal to 6.0 inches and about 6.0 to 14.0 inches, respectively.
However, section 2144.04 IV. A. of the MPEP sets forth the Federal Circuit case of In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), which held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
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 construct the suspension so that the equal factory wheel travel and the custom wheel travel of Stocks et al., as modified by Albertini et al., being greater than or equal to 6.0 inches or about 6.0 to 14.0 inches with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stocks et al. US 10,029,603 in view of Albertini et al. US 5,845,952, as applied above to claim 10, and further in view of the Bowen Customs reference below (reference U on the attached PTO-892).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Stocks et al., as modified by, Albertini et al. disclose:
The vehicle system of claim 10, except wherein the at least one box comprises at least one lower box attached to the deck behind the back wheel, the at least one lower box comprises the end of the vehicle at the back overhang of the vehicle and except where
wherein the lower edge is angled to increase the custom departure angle.
However, the Bowen Customs reference discloses a box bed custom bed with a lower box (as identified in the picture below) which is attached to a deck of the custom bed behind the back wheel to define the back overhang of the vehicle and the lower box has an angled lower edge that increases the departure angle of the custom bed.
PNG
media_image4.png
427
647
media_image4.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skill in the art is someone presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. The Bowen Customs reference is considered to be relevant art in that the Bowen Customs reference is in the same field of endeavor, namely that which pertains to vehicle bed constructions, as the Stocks et al. reference.
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 provide the custom bed of Stocks et al., as modified by, Albertini et al. with an angle lower box behind the back wheel as taught by the Bowen Customs reference with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the storage capacity of the custom bed.
Regarding claim 15, Stocks et al., as modified by Albertini et al. and Bowen Customs reference below (reference U on the attached PTO-892), disclose that the lower edge of the lower box defines an angled edge, except for the exact angle being about 13 degrees to about 25 degrees.
However, section 2144.04 IV. A. of the MPEP sets forth the Federal Circuit case of In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), which held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
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 construct the construct the lower box of Stocks et al., as modified by Albertini et al. and Bowen Customs reference below (reference U on the attached PTO-892), to have a lower box angle of about 13 degrees to about 25 degrees with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stocks et al. US 10,029,603 in view of Albertini et al. US 5,845,952, as applied above to claim 10, and further in view of Ranjan et al. 10,315,479.
Regarding claim 16, the various embodiments of the vehicle system of Stocks et al. including the factory bed configuration and the custom bed configuration (as discussed above with respect to claim 1), may have suspension components (see column 3, lines 26-28 of Stocks et al.) where a vehicle’s suspension naturally has a suspension stroke resulting in a certain wheel travel. Thus, Stocks et al., as modified by Albertini et al., is considered to have a factory wheel travel and a custom wheel travel.
However, Stocks et al., as modified by Albertini et al., does not disclose that the factory wheel travel is different from the custom wheel travel, namely the custom wheel travel is greater than the factory wheel travel and wherein the custom wheel travel is greater than or equal to 6.0 inches.
However, Ranjan et al. discloses that a suspension element may be selectively adjusted to suit a desired suspension function based upon user preference given a particular load and/or type of terrain. See column 2, lines 13-18.
A person of ordinary skill in the art is someone presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. The Ranjan et al. reference is considered to be relevant art in that the Ranjan et al. reference is in the same field of endeavor, namely that which pertains to vehicle suspensions, as the Stocks et al. reference.
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 adjust the suspension function and associated wheel travel between the factory bed and custom bed configurations of Stocks et al., as modified by Albertini et al., to differ, including for the custom wheel travel being greater than the factory wheel travel, as taught by Ranjan et al. with a reasonable expectation of success based upon user preference given a particular load the vehicle is carrying and/or type of terrain that the vehicle is traveling over.
In addition, 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 construct the construct custom wheel travel of Stocks et al., as modified by Albertini et al. and Ranjan et al., to be greater than or equal to 6.0 inches with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stocks et al. US 10,029,603 in view of Albertini et al. US 5,845,952.
Stocks et al. disclose a system including a truck chassis (108; Figs. 2C, 3 and 4) which includes a framework to support a portion of a truck bed unit (110; Figs. 2C, 3 and 4), as disclosed in col. 3, lines 33-39. The truck bed unit (110) may include a box bed as shown in Figs. 3 and 4 (col. 3, line 56) or a flatbed as shown in Fig. 2C (col. 3, lines 59-60) which are interchangeably attached to the chassis (col. 5, lines 13-14). Additional types of truck bed units (110) are disclosed in column 4, lines 9-16. Any one of these truck bed units (110) may be attached to the chassis (108) when the truck (102; Figs. 2C, 3 and 4) is received from the factory or may be attached to the chassis (108) by the consumer if the truck (102) is purchased from the factory without a truck bed unit thereon. In either case, the first type of any of the truck bed units (110) that is attached to the chassis is considered to be the “original truck bed”. With the “original truck bed” being defined in this manner, the first type of truck bed unit (110) that is attached to the chassis (108) may be the flatbed truck bed unit (110), as shown in Fig. 2C. Therefore, the flatbed truck bed unit (110) in Fig. 2C is considered to be the “original bed” which is interchangeable with the box bed truck bed unit (110) shown in Figs. 3 and 4, where such box bed truck bed unit, when interchanged with the flatbed truck bed unit, is considered to be a “custom bed” in that it replaces the original flatbed truck bed unit and has different features, such as sidewalls which form a box, or “customizations” as compared to the original flatbed truck bed unit. Since both the flatbed truck bed unit (110; Fig. 2C) and the box bed truck bed unit (Fig. 3 and 4) can be selectively attached to the chassis (108) by way of the same “extensions” (116; Figs. 2C , 3 and 4) configuration, the custom bed height is considered to be equal to the original bed height. Therefore, with the original bed and custom bed defined in this manner, Stocks et al. is considered to disclose certain features of claims 21 and 22 as follows:
Regarding claim 21, Stocks et al. disclose:
A vehicle system comprising:
a vehicle (102; Figs. 2C, 3 and 4) comprising a frame (as pointed out in annotated Fig. 2C above) wherein the flatbed (110; as pointed out in annotated Fig. 2C above);
a custom bed (the box bed truck bed unit 110 shown in Figs. 3 and 4) attached directly (in that the custom bed is attached to the frame (as pointed out in annotated Fig. 2C above) by mounting plates (214; Fig. 2C above) with no other structures therebetween) to the frame, the custom bed comprising a deck (as is configured identically to that of the deck of the flatbed as identified in annotated Fig. 2C above) attached directly (in that it is the deck of the custom bed which is attached to the frame to the frame as pointed out in annotated Fig. 2C above by mounting plates (214; Fig. 2C above) with no other structures therebetween) to the frame, and at least one fender assembly (as pointed out in annotated Fig. 3 below) attached to the deck (as pointed out in annotated Fig. 3 below) and extending vertically from the deck (see the vertical extension of the fender assembly in annotated Fig. 3 below), wherein the deck defines a custom bed height that is a height of the deck above the frame,
a departure angle defined as an angle between grade and a line drawn between a back wheel and an end of the vehicle at a back overhang of the vehicle, the vehicle having a custom departure angle when the custom bed is attached to the frame, see annotated Fig. 3 above, and
a plurality of wheels (Fig. 3) each having a suspension (see column 3, lines 26-28 of Stocks et al.) naturally having a suspension stroke, wherein a wheel travel is defined as a distance from a bottom of the suspension stroke of at least one of the plurality of wheels to a top of the suspension stroke of the at least one of the plurality of wheels, wherein a top of the at least one fender assembly defines a fender assembly distance (as pointed out in annotated Fig. 3 below) between the top and the deck.
PNG
media_image5.png
634
942
media_image5.png
Greyscale
However, Stocks et al. do not disclose at least one box for storage attached to the deck and positioned above the deck; the custom bed height being less than or equal to about 4 inches; the custom departure angle is about 30 degrees to about 75 degrees; the vehicle system has a custom wheel travel of at least 10 inches; or the fender assembly distance is at least 10 inches.
Notwithstanding, Albertini et al. disclose a customized box bed truck bed unit (see annotated Fig. 1 below) with a deck (16; Fig. 1) and at least one box for storage (see annotated Fig. 1 below) attached to the deck above the deck (16; Fig. 1), where the at least one box comprises at least one upper box (see annotated Fig. 1 below) attached to the deck (16; Fig. 1), wherein a bottom of the at least one upper box is positioned an upper box distance (as illustrated in annotated Fig. 1 below) above the deck (16; Fig. 1) and where the at least one box comprises a plurality of upper boxes (see annotated Fig. 1 below) attached to the deck and a plurality of lower boxes (see annotated Fig. 1 below) attached to the deck (16; Fig. 1), wherein the plurality of upper boxes and the plurality of lower boxes are removably attached to the deck (in that they can be removable as desired, for example for repair or replacement) such that the plurality of upper boxes and the plurality of lower boxes are modular.
PNG
media_image6.png
549
783
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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 provide the deck of Stocks et al. with the storage box arrangement of Albertini et al. attached to the deck with a reasonable expectation of success in order to more easily transport a variety of items.
In addition, Section 2144.04 IV. A. of the MPEP sets forth the Federal Circuit case of In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), which held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
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 construct the custom bed height of Stocks et al., as modified by Albertini et al. and as further modified above, to be less than or equal to about 4 inches with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
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 construct the custom departure angle of Stocks et al., as modified by Albertini et al. and as further modified above, to be about 30 degrees to about 75 degrees with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
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 construct the custom wheel travel of Stocks et al., as modified by Albertini et al. and as further modified above, to be at least 10 inches with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
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 construct the fender assembly distance of Stocks et al., as modified by Albertini et al. and as further modified above, to be is at least 10 inches with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 22, Stocks et al. disclose:
A vehicle system comprising:
a vehicle (102; Figs. 2C, 3 and 4) comprising a frame (as pointed out in annotated Fig. 2C above) wherein the flatbed (110; as pointed out in annotated Fig. 2C above);
a custom bed (the box bed truck bed unit 110 shown in Figs. 3 and 4) attached directly (in that the custom bed is attached to the frame (as pointed out in annotated Fig. 2C above) by mounting plates (214; Fig. 2C above) with no other structures therebetween) to the frame, the custom bed comprising a deck (as is configured identically to that of the deck of the flatbed as identified in annotated Fig. 2C above) attached directly (in that it is the deck of the custom bed which is attached to the frame to the frame as pointed out in annotated Fig. 2C above) by mounting plates (214; Fig. 2C above) with no other structures therebetween) to the frame, and at least one fender assembly (as pointed out in annotated Fig. 3 above) attached to the deck (as pointed out in annotated Fig. 3 above) and extending vertically from the deck (see the vertical extension of the fender assembly in annotated Fig. 3 above), wherein the deck defines a custom bed height that is a height of the deck above the frame,
a departure angle defined as an angle between grade and a line drawn between a back wheel and an end of the vehicle at a back overhang of the vehicle, the vehicle having a custom departure angle when the custom bed is attached to the frame, see annotated Fig. 3 above, and
a plurality of wheels (Fig. 3) each having a suspension (see column 3, lines 26-28 of Stocks et al.) naturally having a suspension stroke, wherein a wheel travel is defined as a distance from a bottom of the suspension stroke of at least one of the plurality of wheels to a top of the suspension stroke of the at least one of the plurality of wheels, wherein a top of the at least one fender assembly defines a fender assembly distance (as pointed out in annotated Fig. 3 above) between the top and the deck.
However, Stocks et al. do not disclose at least one box for storage attached to the deck and positioned above the deck, where the at least one box comprises at least one upper box assembly attached to the deck and positioned above the at least one fender assembly, the at least one upper box assembly comprises a lower edge positioned an upper box assembly distance above the deck; the custom bed height is less than or equal to about 4 inches; the custom departure angle is about 30 degrees to about 75 degrees; the upper box assembly distance is at least 10 inches; a custom wheel travel of at least 10 inches; and the fender assembly distance is at least 10 inches.
Notwithstanding, Albertini et al. disclose a customized box bed truck bed unit (see annotated Fig. 1 above) with a deck (16; Fig. 1) and at least one box for storage (see annotated Fig. 1 above) attached to the deck above the deck (16; Fig. 1), where the at least one box comprises at least one upper box assembly (see annotated Fig. 1 above) at least indirectly attached to the deck (16; Fig. 1) and positioned above a fender assembly (as shown in annotated Fig. 1 above), wherein a lower edge of the at least one upper box is positioned an upper box distance (as illustrated in annotated Fig. 1 above) above the deck (16; Fig. 1) and where the at least one box comprises a plurality of upper boxes (see annotated Fig. 1 above) attached to the deck and a plurality of lower boxes (see annotated Fig. 1 above) attached to the deck (16; Fig. 1), wherein the plurality of upper boxes and the plurality of lower boxes are removably attached to the deck (in that they can be removable as desired, for example for repair or replacement) such that the plurality of upper boxes and the plurality of lower boxes are modular.
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 provide the deck of Stocks et al. with the storage box arrangement of Albertini et al. attached to the deck with a reasonable expectation of success in order to more easily transport a variety of items.
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 construct the custom bed height of Stocks et al., as modified by Albertini et al. and as further modified above, to be less than or equal to about 4 inches with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
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 construct the custom departure angle of Stocks et al., as modified by Albertini et al. and as further modified above, to be about 30 degrees to about 75 degrees with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
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 construct the upper box assembly distance of Stocks et al., as modified by Albertini et al., to be at least 10 inches with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
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 construct the custom wheel travel of Stocks et al., as modified by Albertini et al. and as further modified above, to be at least 10 inches with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
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 construct the fender assembly distance of Stocks et al., as modified by Albertini et al. and as further modified above, to be is at least 10 inches with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/10/26 have been fully considered. Examiner’s response thereto follows. Reference to certain page numbers below are the pages of the “REMARKS” section of the amendment of 3/10/26 as numbered thereon.
From page 9 through the first paragraph of page 13 Applicant addresses certain aspect of the previous Office action and summarizes the claim changes and new claims 21 and 22.
From the middle of page 13 through Figure 1 on page 16, Applicant summarizes the instant invention and provides various excepts from the specification of the instant invention.
On page 17 applicant argues that Stocks does not disclose “a custom bed attached directly to the frame, a bed height that is approximately equal to or lower than the factory bed height”; and or ”the custom bed height is less than or equal to about four inches.”
Applicant copies an excerpt from the last office action on page 17 of the remarks followed by excerpts from Stocks et al. from the bottom of page 17 through the top of page 19. Applicant then provides support for the argument from the middle of page 19 through the top of page 22. The points made are as follows:
A. The custom bed (of Stocks et al.) is not attached directly to the frame. This is not persuasive because the box bed unit 110 of Figs. 3 and 4 of Stocks et al. is considered to be a “custom bed”, as explained above. Furthermore, the custom bed (the box bed truck bed unit 110 shown in Figs. 3 and 4) is considered to be directly attached to the frame because the custom bed is attached to the frame (as pointed out in annotated Fig. 2C below) by mounting plates (214; Fig. 2C below) with no other structures therebetween.
B. Applicant disagrees with how the examiner is interpreting Stocks et al. in terms of defining a factory bed and a custom bed. The key argument is that the background of Stocks et al. establishes the factory bed. However, the disclosure of the invention of Stocks et al. does not mention that the “non-removal truck bed” in the background is ever constructed on the frame of the invention prior to constructing the frame so as to accommodate a variety of units 110 (Figs 2C and 3-4). More specifically, this argument is not persuasive because in the passage from Stocks et al., col;. 1, lines 20-23, the mention of a “truck” is not the truck of the current invention. It is referring to a typical truck which usually has certain features relating to a non-removable bed. Therefore, this passage is describing the prior art and not the invention of Stocks et al. and, as such, the non-removable truck bed mentioned in the background section does not define the original bed height of the invention of Stocks et al.
It is the Examiner’s position that the “factory bed” and associated bed height recited in claim 1 is disclosed by Stocks et al. is as follows.
Stocks et al. disclose a system including a truck chassis (108; Figs. 2C, 3 and 4) which includes a framework to support a portion of a truck bed unit (110; Figs. 2C, 3 and 4), as disclosed in col. 3, lines 33-39. The truck bed unit (110) may include a box bed as shown in Figs. 3 and 4 (col. 3, line 56) or a flatbed as shown in Fig. 2C (col. 3, lines 59-60) which are interchangeably attached to the chassis (col. 5, lines 13-14). Additional types of truck bed units (110) are disclosed in column 4, lines 9-16. Any one of these truck bed units (110) may be attached to the chassis (108) when the truck (102; Figs. 2C, 3 and 4) is received from the factory or may be attached to the chassis (108) by the consumer if the truck (102) is purchased from the factory without a truck bed unit thereon. In either case, the first type of any of the truck bed units (110) that is attached to the chassis is considered to be the “factory truck bed”. With the “factory truck bed” being defined in this manner, the first type of truck bed unit (110) that is attached to the chassis (108) may be the flatbed truck bed unit (110), as shown in Fig. 2C. Therefore, the flatbed truck bed unit (110) in Fig. 2C is considered to be the “factory bed” which is interchangeable with the box bed truck bed unit (110) shown in Figs. 3 and 4, where such box bed truck bed unit, when interchanged with the flatbed truck bed unit, is considered to be a “custom bed” in that it replaces the original flatbed truck bed unit and has different features, such as sidewalls which form a box, or “customizations” as compared to the original flatbed truck bed unit. Applicant also argues that Stocks et al. cannot describe or suggest a custom bed with a custom bed height that is approximately equal to or lower than the original bed height. This is not persuasive because this argument is based upon Applicant’s position that the “the original non-removable truck bed mentioned in the background section of Stocks defines the claimed original bed”, where this manner of defining the ”original bed” is rebutted by the Examiner above. Specifically, the non-removable truck bed mentioned in the background section is of a typical bed of the prior art and not that of the invention of Stocks.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph D. Pape whose telephone number is (571)272-6664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7 AM-3:30 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.
/Joseph D. Pape/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612