DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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, 2, 6, 11, 12, 16-18, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Painter (US 4,830,242 A) in view of Schubring et al. (US 8,231,164 B2) and Martin (US 2009/0096239 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Painter discloses a truck storage system, comprising: a deck (200) configured to span substantially a total width of a truck bed (truck bed not currently being claimed in combination due to the functional language “configured to”), wherein the deck includes a center section (202) and side sections (204,208), wherein the side sections are disposed on opposed sides of the center section and directly adjoining the center section (see Figure 1); four support feet (44,50,54,60), each support foot of the four support feet situated at a respective corner of the center section (see Figure 1); a drawer assembly comprising a single drawer (500) situated below the center section and spanning substantially a total width of the center section (see Figure 2), wherein the single drawer is configured to be slidable in a longitudinal direction of the truck bed (see Figure 2); and at least one storage compartment (under 208 or under 204, see Figure 1, see “storage compartments” in col. 8 line 64) situated between the drawer assembly and a side of the truck bed, wherein the at least one storage compartment is structurally separate from the support feet (see Figure 1).
Painter fails to disclose the at least one storage compartment being a self-contained body having walls and a bottom that define an enclosed volume, wherein the at least one storage compartment is fully removable from the truck storage system, and wherein a lid of the at least one storage compartment is detachably mounted to a surface of the side sections to substantially seal the enclosed volume when closed. In Painter, the storage compartment set forth above is really just the empty space beneath lid 204 or 208. The truck bed itself partially defines the storage compartment.
Schubring teaches that it was already known to provide a vehicle deck (12) with a removable compartment (18) 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). Schubring teaches the storage compartment storage being a self-contained body (78) having walls (84) and a bottom (82) that define an enclosed volume, wherein the at least one storage compartment is fully removable from the truck storage system, and wherein a lid (26) of the at least one storage compartment is detachably mounted to a surface of the side sections of the deck (see Figure 5) to substantially seal (76) the enclosed volume when closed.
Martin teaches that it was already known for a deck like that of Painter 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 replaced the large storage compartments of Painter with a plurality of removable compartments like those of Schubring, the motivation being to increase the organizational capacity of the system in the manner taught by Martin.
Regarding claim 2, Painter as modified above would include the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one storage compartment lid is configured to restrict access to contents within the at least one storage compartment.
Regarding claim 6, Painter as modified above would include the system of claim 1, Painter further disclosing: at least two tie down attachment members (90, 94, 96, 98, 110, 114, 116, or 118 - any of which could have some form of tie down attached thereto), wherein each tie down attachment member is situated between the at least one drawer assembly and the side of the truck bed (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 11, Painter 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. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have sloped the drawer assembly walls at an angle of at most 1 degree if for no other reason than particular aesthetics. 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, Painter as modified above would include the system of claim 1, wherein Painter 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 Figures and col. 13 line 62 - col. 14 line 8).
Regarding claim 16, Painter as modified above would include the system of claim 1, Painter further disclosing: lateral steel tubes (62, 64, 66, 68, and “steel tubing” in col. 5 lines 9-10) spanning across the center section to the two side sections (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 17, Painter as modified above would include the system of claim 1, wherein Painter discloses the front support foot (44 or 54) and the rear support foot (50/51 or 60/61) are dimensionally different (the rear foot includes an element 51,61 that the front foot does not).
Regarding claim 18, Painter as modified above would include the system of claim 1, Painter further disclosing: at least one closeout member (584, Figure 2) which is configured to provide stability to the deck (by being positioned right underneath the deck) and to prevent an ingress of water into the at least one drawer assembly (it would prevent water from going into compartment 590 of the drawer).
Regarding claim 21, Painter as modified above would include the system of claim 1, where the at least one storage compartment comprises a plurality of sidewalls, as taught by Schubring, situated between the drawer assembly and the side of the truck bed.
Regarding claim 22, Painter as modified above would include the system of claim 1, where the at least one storage compartment comprises a lower surface, as taught by Schubring, the lower surface distinct from the truck bed.
6. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Painter (US 4,830,242 A) 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 3, Painter 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 Painter 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 Painter 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 Painter (US 4,830,242 A) 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, Painter 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 Painter. 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 Painter deck, 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 Painter system or allow a user to attach a hoist for lifting the Painter system out of the truck bed.
8. Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Painter (US 4,830,242 A) 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 13, Painter as modified above would include the system of claim 1, but so far fails to include wherein an upper surface of the deck has a raised pattern, wherein the raised pattern is configured to engage a relief pattern on an underside of at least one accessory case to thereby create a positive-fit connection between the deck and the at least one accessory case. Williams shows that it was already known for the upper surface of a deck (40) to include a raised pattern (see Figure 3). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand through their own available knowledge and reasoning that such pattern would allow objects to sit on top of the raised pattern while allowing water to drain under the object to keep it dry, as is typically the case with a normal truck bed, and would have found it obvious to have added such a raised pattern to the Painter deck for this reason. Such a raised pattern would inherently be configured to engage a relief pattern on an underside of at least one accessory case to thereby create a positive-fit connection between the deck and the at least one accessory case. No specific accessory case or relief pattern is currently being claimed in combination due to the functional language “configured to”.
Regarding claim 14, Painter as modified above would include the system of claim 13, wherein the raised pattern covers a majority of the upper surface of the deck, as taught by Williams.
9. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Painter (US 4,830,242 A) in view of Schubring et al. (US 8,231,164 B2), Martin (US 2009/0096239 A1), and Williams (US 4,733,898 A) as applied above, further in view of Bullock (US 7,134,819 B2) and Furniss (US 10,668,870 B2).
Regarding claim 15, Painter as modified above would include the system of claim 13, but so far fails to include: at least two tie down attachment members, each tie down attachment member situated between the at least one drawer assembly and the side of the truck bed, wherein an area between the at least two tie down attachment members does not contain the raised pattern. 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 Painter. 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 Painter deck, 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 Painter system or allow a user to attach a hoist for lifting the Painter system out of the truck bed. Regarding the area between the at least two tie down attachment member not containing the raised pattern, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have varied or changed the shape of the pattern if for no other reason that aesthetics. 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
11. Claims 7, 8, 10, 19, and 20 are allowable over the prior art of record. The drawing objection with respect to claim 8 still needs to be overcome. Examiner suggests cancelling claim 8 as its not needed for patentability - OR - Applicant needs to show the turnbuckle as a black box or similar per 37 CFR 1.83(a).
Response to Arguments
12. 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
13. 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