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 .
Claim Objections
Claim1 objected to because of the following informalities: The 5/29/2025 response indicates that claim 1 is canceled, however this is not accurately reflected in the listing of claims submitted in the same response. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 2-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Healy et al. (US 10131285, hereinafter ‘Healy’) in view of Carlson (US 5441220).
Healy discloses a bucket holding assembly capable of securing a bucket in a bed of a truck, said assembly comprising: a truck having a bed and tailgate hingedly attached to side bed (col. 5, ll. 50-65); a holding unit (100-104) being positionable on said bed (functional/intended use limitation), said holding unit having a grip (100) which each grip said bed thereby inhibiting said holding unit from sliding in said bed, said holding unit having a receiver (103) for insertably receiving a bucket for securing the bucket on said bed (functional/intended use limitation); except does not expressly disclose the pair of grips/tabs as claimed, rather disclosing a single grip.
However, Carlson teaches a similar device being provided with a pair of grips/tabs (40a, 40b) as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use two grips as taught by Carlson on the device by Healy, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use two grips as taught by Carlson on the device by Healy, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Healy as modified above further results in a device wherein said holding unit comprises: a plate (Healy 101) having an upper surface, a bottom surface and a perimeter edge extending between said upper surface and said bottom surface, said perimeter edge having a first side (Healy Figs. 1-5), said bottom surface resting against said top surface of said bed having said first side being aligned with said rear edge of said bed (when viewed in combination; functional/intended use recitation); and a pair of tabs (Carlson 40a, 40b), each of said tabs having an upper edge, a rear face and a front face, said upper edge of each of said tabs being coupled to said first side of said perimeter edge of said plate such that each of said tabs defines a respective one of said grips of said holding unit (Carlson Figs. 1-4); each of said tabs being oriented to lie on a plane being perpendicularly oriented with said bottom surface of said plate such that each of said tabs extends downwardly from said plate (when viewed in combination), each of said tabs having a free bottom edge being coplanar with and vertically spaced from said upper edge of said tab (Carlson Figs. 1-4) such that each tab is positionable extending down into a gap between said bed and said tailgate (functional/intended use limitation).
Healy as modified above further results in a device wherein said bed has a top surface and a rear edge, said tailgate having a bottom edge and a front surface, said bottom edge being spaced from said rear edge when said tailgate is positioned in an open position (Healy col. 5, ll. 50-65, Carlson Figs. 1-4), said front surface lying on a plane being perpendicularly oriented with said top surface of said bed when said tailgate is closed (Healy col. 5, ll. 50-65, Carlson Figs. 1-4); said front face of each of said tabs abutting said rear edge of said bed thereby inhibiting said plate from sliding forwardly in said bed when said truck is driving (functional/intended use limitation); and said rear face abuts said front surface of said tailgate when said tailgate is closed thereby inhibiting said plate from sliding rearwardly in said bed when said truck is driving (functional/intended use limitation); and an annular panel (Healy 103) having a lower edge, said lower edge being coupled to said upper surface of said plate such that said annular plate defines said receiver (Healy Figs. 1-6), said annular panel surrounding the bucket when the bucket is placed on said plate for restraining the bucket (functional/intended use recitation).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 2-6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 PETER N. HELVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1423. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-7pm EST.
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.
/PETER N HELVEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
November 6, 2025