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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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, 3, 6, 8-10, and 12 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the fluid outlet" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 3, 6, 8-10, and 12 are rejected for incorporating the indefinite limitation by dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Broadus (US 6206252).
Broadus discloses a storage space assembly comprising a storage cavity (B) having a space for receiving items to be stored (Fig. 1), the storage space assembly further comprising at least one fluid reservoir (30) which is attached to the storage cavity or integrated into the storage cavity (Figs. 1-6), wherein the storage cavity has an inner wall facing the receiving space (Fig. 5, right side 34 facing truck bed) and an outer wall (Fig. 6, left side 34) and the fluid reservoir is arranged between an inner wall facing the receiving space and an outer wall of the storage cavity (Figs. 5, 6); the fluid reservoir and/or the storage cavity is/are made of a plastics material or comprise(s) such a plastics material (col. 2, ll. 30); the fluid reservoir extends over between 40% and 80% of the wall of the storage cavity (see Figs. 1, 2; nearly 100% of tailgate ‘wall’ covered); and wherein the fluid outlet is located on a lower edge of the fluid reservoir (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
438
365
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Broadus further discloses the fluid reservoir is integrally formed on the storage cavity (Figs. 106); the fluid reservoir comprises a fluid inlet (38) and a fluid outlet (52); the at least one fluid reservoir is a water tank (functional/intended use limitation.
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broadus (US 6206252) in view of Graf (US 2008/0067179).
Broadus discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the particular materials of the fluid reservoir as claimed.
However, Graf teaches constructing a fluid reservoir wherein the material for the fluid reservoir is HDPE or PP (claim 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the Broadus fluid reservoir out of HDPE or PP material as taught by Graf, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Claim(s) 9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broadus (US 6206252) in view of Graf (US 2008/0067179) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Knappe (US 5012950).
Broadus as modified above discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the particular materials of the fluid reservoir as claimed.
However, Knappe teaches constructing a fluid reservoir wherein the material for the fluid reservoir is filled with glass fiber material (Abstract, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the Broadus fluid reservoir out of glass fiber material as taught by Knappe, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Boadus does not teach the limitations of amended claim 1 because Broadus does not disclose a water tank and storage cavity that are made of plastic material. This argument has been considered, however is not persuasive in light of Broadus specifically teaching construction of its water tank out of plastic material (see col. 2, ll. 30).
Applicant next argues that Broadus does not disclose a fluid reservoir that extends over more than 40% of the wall of the storage cavity. This argument has been considered, however is not persuasive in light of the Broadus fluid reservoir extending over close to 100% of the end wall, or tailgate, of the storage cavity (truck bed). This is shown extensively throughout Figures 1-6 of Broadus.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the fluid outlet is in the bottom underneath the storage space) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
For the reasons stated above, as well as those set forth in the rejections above, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
September 17, 2025