DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicants’ Preliminary Amendment, filed 5/10/2024, has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, it appears that “box to exterior” should be “box to the exterior”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 19-20 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.
Claim 19 recites ”A method of mounting a bedslide bracket assembly to a bedslide assembly and a bulkhead of a pickup truck cargo box method of mounting a bedslide bracket assembly comprising the steps of”, This recitation is indefinite as it is not clear what is being claimed. The recitation is grammatically cumbersome and it is unclear if this is a result of a typographical error or if there are words missing from the recitation that are required for the claimed limitation.
Dependent claim 20 does not act to cure the deficiencies of parent claim 19 and is thereby rejected for at least the same rationale.
It should be noted that clams 19-20 do not have any art-based rejections. However, if the amendment to overcome the 112 rejection changes the scope of the invention, the examiner reserves the right to make art based rejections.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 are allowed.
Claim 19 is likely to be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. It is noted that if the amendment to overcome the 112 rejection changes the scope of the invention, the examiner reserves the right to make art based rejections.
Claim 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Sliding frames for trucks and trailers as well as their structure are well known in the art. Representative art which appears close to the claimed invention includes Moberley et al. (GB 2578736 – see IDS), Jensen (US 20190053667), Nunn (US 11440459), Palmer et al (US 6390761), Standifer (US 20200039588), Fox (US 20020180231), Sasnowich et al. (US 20200406986), Williams (US 9227547), Herbert (US 20040007889) and Brockhaus (US 4950123). In general, this art, alone or in combination, discloses various recited features, including but not limited to, a truck bed, a bedslide assembly, a bedslide mounting bracket, a wing bulkhead bracket, fasteners and pins to connect the bulkhead brackets to a bulkhead of the truck bed, and nuts for the fasteners. However, this art fails to disclose or fairly suggest the specifically combined structural components and positional interconnection relationships. Specifically, the art does not disclose the specifically recited combination having a specific bulkhead bracket relationship with the truck bed bulkhead and floor of the truck bed. It could be argued that the individual structure is generally known in the art and thus, could just be assembled to disclose the claimed invention. However, the instant invention clearly and specifically recites structural relationships, steps, and combinations, which require a greater effort than just cobbling together known structures. Further, the claimed structures are sufficiently detailed to be distinguishable when configured as claimed. The examiner can find no motivation to combine or modify the references which would define a fully functioning apparatus as claimed in the instant application. Thus, it would not have been within routine skill to glean the specifically combined limitations of the instant invention, from the art, without the benefit of hindsight reasoning or extensive experimentation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARAS P BEMKO whose telephone number is (571)270-1830. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 (EDT/EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicole Coy can be reached on 571-272-5405. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Taras P Bemko/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
2/4/2026