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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/6/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 10-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 9,168,874 B2) in view of Schubring et al. (US 8,231,164 B2) and Martin (US 2009/0096239 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Smith discloses a truck storage system, comprising: a deck (10) configured to span substantially a total width of a truck bed; four support feet (30,30,40,40), each support foot situated at a respective corner of the truck bed and configured to support the deck; a center support (20) extending in a longitudinal direction of the truck bed and configured to support the deck (see Figure 2); at least one drawer assembly (60) with the center support on a second side (see Figure 2), the drawer assembly configured to be slidable in the longitudinal direction of the truck bed.
Smith fails to disclose at least one storage compartment situated (i) external to the at least one drawer assembly and (ii) between the at least one drawer assembly and a side of the truck bed, wherein the at least one storage compartment is structurally separate from the support feet, does not provide structural support for the deck, the center support, or the drawer assembly, and is independently removable from the truck storage system without detaching the deck, the support feet, or the center support. Smith discloses four compartments (39,49) formed within the four feet but no other compartments as presently claimed.
Schubring teaches that it was already known to provide a vehicle deck (12) with a removable compartment (78) to facilitate the transport of its contents, to allow reconfiguration of in deck storage, and to facilitate the cleaning or replacement of the compartment itself (see col. 5 lines 20-29).
Martin teaches that it was already known for a deck like that of Smith to include basically any number of compartments in order to suit the particular need of the user, where more compartments provide better storage for smaller parts and tool cases (see [0029]).
Considering these references in their entirety, 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 Smith deck with a plurality of removable compartments like those of Schubring, in this case as least two on each side of the Smith deck, the motivation being to increase the organizational capacity of the system in the manner taught by Martin.
Regarding these new compartments being specifically situated between the at least one drawer assembly and a side of the truck bed, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have realized through their own available knowledge and reasoning that this is really the only available position for additional compartments within the design of Smith as any other position would interfere with drawer function. These added compartments would also be structurally separate from the support feet, would not provide structural support for the deck, the center support, or the drawer assembly, and would be independently removable, as taught by Schubring, without detaching the deck, the support feet, or the center support.
Regarding claim 3, Smith as modified above would include the system of claim 1, wherein the at least four compartments added above include at least two storage compartments wherein a first of the two storage compartments would be situated adjacent the rear support foot and a second of the two storage compartments would be situated adjacent the front support foot on the first side of the deck.
Regarding claim 4, Smith as modified above would include the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one storage compartment is fully removable, as taught by Schubring.
Regarding claim 5, Smith as modified above would include the system of claim 1, further comprising at least one storage cover, as taught by Schubring (28), to cover the at least one storage compartment. Schubring fails to disclose the at least one storage cover being approximately twice a length of a respective storage compartment. Smith teaches that it was already known to use dividers (68) to separate a storage compartment space. 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 divider like those of Smith within the Schubring compartment, now of the modified Smith system, the motivation being to provide more organizational capability. With the storage compartment now being divided into two storage compartments, the cover would be approximately twice a length of either of the subdivided storage compartments. For more context with respect to this claim and the interpretation of the claim language, see the Drawing Objection with respect to claim 5 in the Non-Final rejection mailed 6/24/25 and also see Section V of Applicant’s Response filed 9/22/25.
Regarding claim 6, Smith as modified above would include the system of claim 1, further comprising: at least two tie down attachment members (34,44), each tie down attachment member situated between the at least one drawer assembly and the side of the truck bed, as taught by Smith.
Regarding claim 10, Smith as modified above would include the system of claim 1, wherein Smith discloses the at least one drawer assembly includes at least two drawer assemblies (60) that are nestable for packaging, shipping and/or storage (see col. 2 lines 31-33 and Figures).
Regarding claim 11, Smith as modified above would include the system of claim 1, but so far fails to include wherein the at least one drawer assembly has side walls that slope at an angle of at most 1 degree. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed would have realized through their own available knowledge and reasoning that a tapered shaped would make it easier to nest the drawers (such nesting originally intended by Smith, see col. 9 lines 26-29) as the taper would work to guide one drawer into another and would have found it obvious to have tapered the Smith drawers at an angle of at most 1 degree for this reason. Furthermore, a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. A Change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. In re Seid, 73 USPQ 431.
Regarding claim 12, Smith as modified above would include the system of claim 1, wherein Smith discloses the at least one drawer assembly is configured to extend outward of the deck by at least 75% of a length of the at least one drawer assembly (see “remove the drawer assemblies” in col. 9 lines 31-57).
Regarding claim 13, Smith as modified above would include the system of claim 1, wherein Smith discloses an upper surface (11) of the deck has a raised pattern (see col. 4 lines 51-65) configured to engage a relief pattern on an underside of at least one accessory case (accessory case not currently being claimed in combination due to the functional language “configured to engage”) to thereby create a positive-fit connection between the deck and the at least one accessory case.
Regarding claim 14, Smith as modified above would include the system of claim 13, wherein Smith discloses the raised pattern covers a majority of the upper surface of the deck (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 15, Smith as modified above would include the system of claim 13, further comprising: at least two tie down attachment members (54), each tie down attachment member situated between the at least one drawer assembly and the side of the truck bed, wherein an area (within the feet) between the at least two tie down attachment members does not contain the raised pattern, as taught by Smith.
Regarding claim 16, Smith as modified above would include the system of claim 1, wherein Smith discloses the deck includes two deck halves (10L,10R) configured to interleave with each other above the center support.
Regarding claim 17, Smith as modified above would include the system of claim 1, wherein Smith discloses the front support foot (30) and the rear support foot (40) are dimensionally different (see Figures).
6. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 9,168,874 B2) in view of Schubring et al. (US 8,231,164 B2) and Martin (US 2009/0096239 A1) as applied above, further in view of Williams (US 4,733,898 A).
Regarding claim 2, Smith as modified above would include the system of claim 1, but so far fails to include wherein the at least one storage compartment is at least substantially waterproof. Schubring teaches the compartment including a seal (76), but doesn’t explicitly state the seal being waterproof. Williams teaches that it was already known in the art for a compartment like those of Schubring, now of the modified Smith system, to be water-proof (see col. 7 lines 5-7). 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 storage compartments of the modified Smith system waterproof, as taught by Williams, the motivation being to protect the contents therein from water damage.
7. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 9,168,874 B2) in view of Schubring et al. (US 8,231,164 B2) and Martin (US 2009/0096239 A1) as applied above, further in view of Bullock (US 7,134,819 B2) and Furniss (US 10,668,870 B2).
Regarding claim 9, Smith as modified above would include the system of claim 6, but so far fails to include wherein each of the at least two tie down attachment members include an attachment ring configured to fold down into a recessed cavity of the deck and to rotate upward and swivel. Bullock teaches tie down attachment members (10) that include an attachment ring (22 or 26) configured to fold down into a recessed cavity (see Figures) and to rotate upward (see col. 2 lines 65-66) and swivel (see col. 3 lines 4-18). Furniss teaches that it was already known to provide tie downs (107-112) on the upper surface of a system like that of Smith. 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 tie downs like those of Bullock on the upper surface of the modified Smith system, where such inclusion was already known in the art, as shown by Furniss, with the motivation being to allow a user to attach additional items atop the Smith system or allow a user to attach a hoist for lifting the modified Smith system out of the truck bed.
8. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 9,168,874 B2) in view of Schubring et al. (US 8,231,164 B2) and Martin (US 2009/0096239 A1) as applied above, further in view of Smith (US 2017/0136958 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Smith as modified above would include the system of claim 1, but so far fails to include at least one closeout member which is configured to provide stability to the deck and to prevent an ingress of water into the at least one drawer assembly. Smith ‘958 teaches that a system like that of Smith ‘874 can include a front support member (31, see Figures 32-33) that clearly attaches to one end of the system to provide support and effectively close off the front end. 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 modified Smith system with a front support closeout member, where such inclusion was already known in the art, as shown by Smith ‘958, with the motivation being to provide structural support and effectively close off the front end and effectively prevent debris and water from entering the system.
9. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 9,168,874 B2) in view of Schubring et al. (US 8,231,164 B2) and Martin (US 2009/0096239 A1) as applied above, further in view of Bossenbroek et al. (US 2021/0221276 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Smith as modified above would include a truck storage system, comprising: a deck configured to span substantially a total width of a truck bed, as taught by Smith (10); four support feet, each support foot situated at a respective corner of the truck bed (truck bed being claimed in combination due to the positive structural recitation “situated at”) and configured to support the deck, as taught by Smith (30,30,40,40); a center support extending in a longitudinal direction of the truck bed between the support feet and configured to support the deck, as taught by Smith (20, see Figure 2); at least one drawer assembly situated between a front support foot of the four support feet and a rear support foot of the four support feet on a first side, and the center support on a second side, the drawer assembly configured to be slidable in the longitudinal direction of the truck bed, as taught by Smith (60, see Figure 2); and at least one storage compartment, as collectively taught by Schubring and Martin, situated (i) external to the at least one drawer assembly and (ii) between the at least one drawer assembly and a side of the truck bed, wherein the at least one storage compartment is structurally separate from the support feet, does not provide structural support for the deck, the center support, or the drawer assembly, and is independently removable from the truck storage system without detaching the deck, the support feet, or the center support; at least one tie down attachment member, the tie down attachment member situated between the at least one drawer assembly and the side of the truck bed, as taught by Smith (33 or 34). Smith fails to disclose at least one bracket, wherein the at least one bracket connects the tie down attachment member to a channel extending in a longitudinal direction of the truck bed. Smith generally discloses the use of “J-hooks, brackets and/or fasteners” for attaching the system to the truck bed (see col. 1 line 66 - col. 2 line 4) but doesn’t specifically mention a bracket as claimed. Bossenbroek teaches that it was already known to attach a truck bed accessory using a bracket (12) that attaches the accessory to a channel (18b) extending in a longitudinal direction of the truck bed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have considered any known and suitable fastener for attaching the modified Smith system to the truck bed, in this case choosing to use a channel bracket, where channel brackets were already known to be suitable for such use, as shown by Bossenbroek. Such a bracket would effectively attach the entire Smith system and all of its parts, including the tie downs, to the truck bed channel.
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 7 and 8 are allowable over the art of record.
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant’s arguments filed 5/6/26 with respect to the previously applied prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive but are also moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
12. 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 5/13/26
Prosecution Insights