DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 07, 2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are still objected to because the application contains photographs in black and white [note Figures 1, 6-15 & 24-34]. Photographs are permitted in utility applications if they are the only practical medium for illustrating the invention. Upon review, the position is maintained that black ink drawings would be readily sufficient in order to convey the claimed subject matter and black and white photographs are not the only practical medium for illustration purposes. As such, the use of illustrated drawings is required in place of the photographs – see 37 CFR 1.84(a) & (b). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. It is noted that applicant has indicated the preparation for replacement sheets of drawings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-10 & 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In Claims 1 & 21, use of the phrase “comprise critical dimensions and critical surfaces for interconnecting…” is deemed to constitute a new matter situation since such language relating to the label rail body, the rail back support, and the rim modifier (i.e., label rail system components) is not described in the disclosure as originally filed. Consequently, the remaining claims are rejected since they are dependent, either directly or indirectly, upon a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-10 & 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. In Claims 1 & 21, use of the phrase “comprise critical dimensions and critical surfaces for interconnecting…” in relation to the label rail body, the rail back support, and the rim modifier (i.e., label rail system components) is deemed unclear and confusing as presently set forth since the disclosure as originally filed does not account for nor define a range of dimensions and surfaces that may constitute acceptable, marginal, unacceptable or critical for instance. The claimed phrase lacks any means by which to gauge what may actually constitute a “critical” dimension or surface. As such, the metes and bounds of patent protection being sought by applicant is unascertainable. Consequently, the remaining claims are rejected since they are dependent, either directly or indirectly, upon an indefinite claim.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10, 21-25, 27-28 & 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fixler [US 2019/0090659] in view of Sykes [US 5,069,512]. Fixler teaches of providing a label rail system (fig. 1) for supporting an object {100} to be securely displayed, comprising: a first aluminum [0020] component in the form a label rail body (44), wherein the label rail body is configured to support a deck {50’s & 52}, which in turn supports an object (100) to be displayed; a second aluminum [0020] component in the form a rail back support (43), wherein the rail back support is configured to securely slide into and engage the label rail body (fig. 4); a third aluminum [0020] component in the form a rim modifier (32), wherein the rim modifier is configured to be secured to the label rail body and is further configured to securely accept a vitrine {18} for displaying the object (shown); wherein the label rail body, the rail back support, and the rim modifier comprise critical dimensions and critical surfaces for interconnecting these components into a rigid assembled label rail system (i.e., the label rail body, the rail back support and the rim modifier are joined together in order to form an integral system as shown in figure 3, whereby each of the components is of a critical dimension and having a critical surface in order to connect to each other to defined the rigid label rail system – another way of viewing the components is to include the vertical aspect (44) of the surround of (42) along with the upper vertical aspect of (32) of the inner well (14) in conjunction with the horizontal surface aspect of (43) that is connected to both the outer and inner vertical sections as mapped – see [0021]), and assembling at least the label rail body, the rim modifier, and the vitrine to provide a secure structure for displaying the object (shown). Fixler teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed system as outlined above, but does not specifically disclose extruding of the “components”. As to this aspect, Sykes is cited as an evidence reference for the known teaching of extruding aluminum components (col. 3) used in the formation of a display assembly. As such, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the manufacturing method by which the components of Fixler are formed in view of Sykes’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing an alternative manufacturing process by which aluminum components of the system can be produced as dependent upon costs associated with the manufacturing and/or preferences of the designer. As modified, the extruded label rail body, the extruded rail back support, and the extruded rim modifier are deemed to be assembled in an interconnecting manner (i.e., they are firmly joined together to define an integral rigid assembly). Regarding Claim 2, as modified, the assembled structure is self-supporting (fig. 2); and wherein the assembled structure is configured to be affixed to a base {12, 22, 29} in a horizontal position and also configured to be affixed at any angle from the horizontal position {such as any base that is oriented in a non-horizontal position for instance, if so desired by an end user}. Regarding Claim 3, as modified, the components of the structure comprise multiple pieces of the label rail body, the rim modifier, and the vitrine (shown), wherein the multiple pieces of the label rail body are attached with braces (note [0026] or 45’s). Regarding Claim 4, as modified, the label rail body, the rail back support, the rim modifier, and the vitrine are assembled to form the system by interlocking together and being secured to an exhibition case (12) (note figure 3 to figure 1 progression). Regarding Claim 6, as modified, the vitrine is configured to completely enclose the object being displayed (shown). Regarding Claim 8, as modified, the material of the label rail body, the rail back support, and the rim modifier can be comprised of an inert material other than aluminum (note [0020] describing other materials that can be utilized). Regarding Claim 10, as modified, the rail back support can be utilized to connect two or more label rail bodies together without fasteners (interference fit). Regarding Claim 21, again Fixler teaches of a label rail system (fig. 1) for supporting an object {100} to be securely displayed, comprising: aluminum [0020] components (44, 43, 32) to form label rail system components, wherein the label rail system components
comprise critical dimensions and critical surfaces for interconnecting these components into a rigid assembled label rail system (i.e., the label rail body, the rail back support and the rim modifier are joined together in order to form an integral system as shown in figure 3, whereby each of the components is of a critical dimension and having a critical surface in order to connect to each other to defined the rigid label rail system – another way of viewing the components is to include the vertical aspect (44) of the surround of (42) along with the upper vertical aspect of (32) of the inner well (14) in conjunction with the horizontal surface aspect of (43) that is connected to both the outer and inner vertical sections as mapped – see [0021]), and assembling the label rail system components and the vitrine components to provide a secure and environmentally stable structure {upper enclosure} for displaying the object, wherein the label rail system components are comprised of aluminum (as provided in para [0020]). Fixler teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed system as outlined above, but does not specifically disclose extruding of the “components”. As to this aspect, Sykes is cited as an evidence reference for the known teaching of extruding aluminum components (col. 3) used in the formation of a display assembly. As such, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the manufacturing method by which the components of Fixler are formed in view of Sykes’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing an alternative manufacturing process by which aluminum components of the system can be produced as dependent upon costs associated with the manufacturing and/or preferences of the designer. As modified, the extruded label rail body, the extruded rail back support, and the extruded rim modifier are deemed to be assembled in an interconnecting manner (i.e., they are firmly joined together to define an integral rigid assembly). Regarding Claim 22, as modified, the assembled structure is self-supporting (shown); and wherein the assembled structure is configured to be affixed to the base in a horizontal position and also configured to be affixed at any angle from the horizontal position {such as any base that is oriented in a non-horizontal position for instance, if so desired by an end user}. Regarding Claim 23, as modified, the assembled structure is configured to be affixed to the base at any angle from the horizontal position (depends upon the ingenuity of an end user). Regarding Claim 24, as modified, the components of the structure comprise multiple pieces of the label rail system (shown – fig. 3) and multiple pieces of the vitrine (shown – fig. 1); and wherein the multiple pieces of the label rail system are secured to the base and the deck where the label rail system pieces are in contact with each other. Regarding Claim 25, as modified, the label rail system pieces and the vitrine are assembled to form the system by interlocking together and being secured to an exhibition case (12) (note figure 3 to figure 1 progression). Regarding Claim 27, as modified, the vitrine is configured to completely enclose the object being displayed (fig. 1). Regarding Claim 28, as modified, the material of the label rail system is comprised of an inert material other than aluminum (note para [0020] where a polyurethane coated foam may be utilized – polyurethane or polyurethane foam is generally considered chemically inert). Regarding Claim 30, as modified, the assembled enclosure formed by the label rail system components and the vitrine components comprises a multi-plane enclosure (shown).
Claims 5, 9, 26 & 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fixler and Sykes and further in view of Arage [3,248,815]. Fixler as modified teaches the system as outlined above, including the assembled label rail body, the rim modifier, the deck, and the vitrine being secured to a housing structure / below deck enclosure (12), wherein the base cabinet includes an enclosure housing (fig. 3); but Fixler does not show support equipment or mechanical and electrical components within the enclosure {neither does applicant – note above drawing objections}. As to this aspect, Arage is cited as an evidence reference for the known incorporation of equipment / mechanical components (26, 31) and electrical components (36’s) housed within an enclosure (16) below a display portion of a system (10) in an analogous art. Accordingly, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fixler so as to incorporate mechanical and electrical components / equipment within the enclosure in view of Arage’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing a means within Fixler’s enclosure to house components / equipment that would help to accentuate the object being stored, such as by way of rotatably advertising the object and illuminating the object for enhanced visibility by an observer.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fixler and Sykes and further in view of Sassella et al., [4,877,227]. Fixler as modified teaches the system as outlined above; but does not disclose the use of a jig to aid in cutting to size the rim modifier. As to this aspect, Sassella is cited as an evidence reference for the known incorporation of a jig used to cut to size extruded aluminum components (col. 1, first paragraph) in an analogous art. Accordingly, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fixler so as to incorporate a jig during the manufacturing of the extruded aluminum components in view of Sassella’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing a means by which Fixler’s plural extruded components could be easily, efficiently and accurately cut to length due to the presence of the jig which can deliver a precise cut every time.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims and accompanying arguments, filed January 07, 2026, with respect to the outstanding drawing objections & 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The prior objection to the drawings is maintained with respect to the black and white photograph objections and will be vacated upon the submission of the replacement sheets of drawings which applicant is preparing. The 103 rejections are essentially maintained (revised mapping due to amendments) as noted above with regards to the amended claim scope. As previously noted, the thrust of Applicant’s arguments appears to be centered around the interconnecting of components into a rigid assembled system as recited within Claims 1 & 21. The claims really are devoid of any real structural interconnection relating to the extruded components and merely recite vague and arbitrary “critical” dimensions and surfaces for an intended use (i.e., for interconnecting components into a rigid assembled system). The criticality of the newly cited limitations is not readily set forth within the disclosure. The dimensions and surfaces appear to be arbitrary, a matter of personal design and lacking a problem to be solved. In this instance, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have good reasons to pursue components of a system that are sized and compatible with each other in order for them to be joined in a flush, uniform and precise manner that would produce a completed assembly. Accordingly, providing an assembled system made up of components comprising “critical” dimensions and surfaces is likely not the product of innovation, but of ordinary skill in the art and common sense as the desired outcome would yield a predictable result, i.e., components assembled together to produce a completed end product. As such, the examiner maintains that the prior art features components of a system that are assembled together such that a final end product constitutes a rigid assembled system, i.e., a display case to which an object is to be housed and displayed.
Regarding the combination of references, the position is maintained that a prima facie case of obviousness has been established since applicants claimed invention only unites old elements with no change in their respective functions. Common sense directs one to look with care at a patent application that claims as innovation the combination of known devices according to their established functions, as such, the examiner has identified reasons that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements in the same way as the claimed new invention does. Consequently, the rejections are deemed adequate to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
Furthermore, where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ. 2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ. 2d 1385, 1396 (2007)). Applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results; absent evidence that the modifications necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ. 2d at 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ. 2d at 1396. Accordingly, since the applicant[s] have submitted no persuasive evidence that the combination of the above elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) because it is no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions resulting in the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Lastly, the black and white photographs aspect is still being maintained as noted above within the “Drawings” section, but will be vacated upon the submission of the replacement sheets of drawings which applicant is preparing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES O HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6866. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 am - 4:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Daniel Troy can be reached at 571-270-3742. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
JOH
February 18, 2026
/James O Hansen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637