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 .
This document is responsive to applicant’s amendments filed 9/16/2025.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Howard (US 3,217,444).
Regarding claim 1, Howard discloses:
A live bait storage device that keeps fishing bait alive for prolonged periods of time, the live bait storage device comprising: a body component (see fig 2); a lid (16, 42) comprising a central access opening and a quick access hatch (42) pivotally connected to the lid (via hinge 48) and biased to automatically close once opened (the lid is configured such that gravity biases the lid to close when the lid is opened less than 90 degrees); and an integrated aerator component (see fig 2); wherein the body component and the lid are adapted to receive and secure a plurality of live bait and water within the body component.
Regarding claim 3, Howard discloses:
The live bait storage device of claim 1, wherein the body component is shaped like a standard bucket, with a bottom side, an open top side, and a cylindrical sidewall creating an interior cavity which can be filled with water and live bait (see fig 2).
Regarding claim 4, Howard discloses:
The live bait storage device of claim 3, wherein the body component comprises a handle (18).
Regarding claim 6, Howard discloses:
The live bait storage device of claim 4, wherein the integrated aerator component comprises in combination a battery (70) to power a motor; a pump (54); a hose (56); and an air stone (86), which is immersed in water in the body component to aerate the plurality of live bait within the body component (see fig 2).
The examiner notes that a motor is not required by the claim, only a battery to power a motor. Howard discloses an electrically powered vibrator for imparting a vibratory stroke to the striker member (see col 2, lines 60-70). This is considered a motor.
Regarding claim 7, Howard discloses:
The live bait storage device of claim 6, wherein the integrated aerator component is built-in to the body component to eliminate need for external components (see fig 2).
Regarding claim 9, Howard discloses:
The live bait storage device of claim 8, wherein the hose and attached air stone are positioned within the body component with the air stone being positioned at a bottom of the body component and the hose being run up an interior side of the body component and in communication with the pump (see fig 2).
Regarding claim 10, Howard discloses:
The live bait storage device of claim 9, wherein the hose with the air stone attached is connected by conventional means to the pump, which distributes air through a connector to the hose and then out the air stone to produce tiny bubbles (see fig 2).
Regarding claim 11, Howard discloses:
The live bait storage device of claim 10, wherein the pump is energized by the battery (70).
Regarding claim 12, Howard discloses:
The live bait storage device of claim 11, wherein the pump is driven by the motor which is powered by a rechargeable battery (see fig 2).
Regarding claim 13, Howard discloses:
The live bait storage device of claim 12, wherein the battery is housed within a waterproof battery case with a power switch (the battery is located within a sealed compartment).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 of this title, 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard (US 3,217,444) in view of Clark (US 2,550,533).
Regarding claim 1, Howard discloses:
A live bait storage device that keeps fishing bait alive for prolonged periods of time, the live bait storage device comprising: a body component (see fig 2); a lid (42) comprising a central access opening and a quick access hatch (42) pivotally connected to the lid (via hinge 48); and an integrated aerator component (see fig 2); wherein the body component and the lid are adapted to receive and secure a plurality of live bait and water within the body component.
Howard does not explicitly disclose that the lid is biased to automatically close once opened. Clark teaches a minnow bucket having an access hatch biased to automatically close once opened (77, 77a, 78).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the spring-biased hatch of Clark with the device of Howard yielding the predictable result of providing a lid that is not accidentally left open.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard (US 3,217,444) in view of Obviousness.
Regarding claim 2, Howard discloses the device of claim 1 including a bucket, but does not disclose that the body component is a standard tapered five-gallon bucket. Howard further discloses that other shapes may be adopted without departing from the basic principles of the present invention (see col 1, lines 67-72). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize a standard bucket with the device of Howard for the purpose of utilizing off-the-shelf components for reduced production costs. It is noted that the standard bucket was introduced after the disclosure of Howard and the suggestion of Howard to utilize other shapes would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to attempt to utilize a standard five-gallon bucket.
Claims 14 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard (US 3,217,444) in view of Sloop (US 2009/0064565) in further view of Lambourn (US 4,677,785).
Regarding claim 14, Howard discloses:
A live bait storage device that keeps fishing bait alive for prolonged periods of time, the live bait storage device comprising: a body component (see fig 2) that is shaped like a standard bucket, with a bottom side, an open top side, and a cylindrical sidewall creating an interior cavity which can be filled with water and live bait; a lid (16, 42) comprising a central access opening and a quick access hatch (42) pivotally connected to the lid (via hinge 48) and biased to automatically close once opened (the lid is configured such that gravity biases the lid to close when the lid is opened less than 90 degrees); and an integrated aerator component (see fig 2); and wherein the body component comprises a handle (see fig 2); wherein the body component and the lid are adapted to receive and secure a plurality of live bait and water within the body component; wherein the integrated aerator component comprises in combination a battery (70); a motor (Howard discloses an electrically powered vibrator for imparting a vibratory stroke to the striker member (see col 2, lines 60-70). This is considered a motor.); a pump (54); a hose (56); and an air stone (86), which is immersed in water in the body component to aerate the plurality of live bait within the body component; wherein the pump is positioned on an outside of the body component in communication with the motor and the battery (see fig 2); wherein the hose and attached air stone are positioned within the body component with the air stone being positioned at a bottom of the body component and the hose being run up an interior side of the body component and in communication with the pump (see fig 2); and further wherein the hose with the air stone attached is connected by conventional means to the pump (see fig 2), which distributes air through a connector to the hose and then out the air stone to produce tiny bubbles.
Howard does not disclose: a concavo-convex colander slidably insertable into the body component; wherein the motor is a two winding motor.
Sloop teaches an aerated bucket having a concavo-convex colander slidably insertable into the body component (see paragraph 0004). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the colander of Sloop with the bucket of Howard yielding the predictable result of providing a means to easily remove the bait.
Lambourn teaches an aerated bucket with a motor having two windings and two speeds to vary the speed of the motor to provide the necessary level of oxygen. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the two-winding, two-speed motor of Lambourn with the device of Howard yielding the predictable result of providing a means to control the level of oxygen.
Regarding claim 18, Howard discloses the device of claim 14, but is silent to any indicia. Since the claimed indicia do not provide a function as defined in MPEP 2111.05, the indicia are given no patentable weight and Howard is considered to anticipate the claim.
Regarding claim 19, see the rejection of claims 12 and 13.
Regarding claim 20, under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See the rejection of claim 14 regarding the structural limitations of the device with Sloop disclosing the colander material in paragraph 0036.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard (US 3,217,444) in view of Sloop (US 2009/0064565) in further view of Lambourn (US 4,677,785) in further view of Pham (US 5,634,291).
Regarding claim 17, Howard as modified discloses the device of claim 14, but does not disclose a drain. Pham teaches a similar device having a drain (see fig 4, ref 78). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the drain of Pham with the device of Howard yielding the predictable result of providing a means to easily remove water from the device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Howard does not disclose a lid that is biased to automatically close. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant’s own device relies on gravity to provide the biasing force. The device of Howard would necessarily perform in the same manner when opened less than 90 degrees such that there is a moment arm force acting on the hinge.
The applicant argues that Howard does not disclose a motor, but as set forth in the rejection above, the device of references 64 and 66 is considered a motor.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is found in the Notice of Reference Cited (PTO-892).
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 RICHARD G DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8am-6:00pm 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, Timothy Collins can be reached on 571-272-6886. 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.
/RICHARD G DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644