DETAILED ACTION
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.
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, the use of the limitations “providing a secure enclosure for displaying the object” / “provide a secure enclosure for displaying the object” are unclear and confusing as presently set forth when interpreting the language within the context of the disclosure as originally filed, since the disclosure accounts for at least three different and distinct “enclosure(s)” regarding the inventive device. For example, paragraph [0054] indicates that a first such enclosure is within an exhibition case, a second such enclosure is within a label rail body enclosure and underneath a deck attached to a top of a label rail body system, while a third such enclosure is enclosed by a vitrine / bonnet and provides space for displaying an object. Accordingly, since one cannot reasonably conclude which of the three or what may actually constitute applicant’s claimed “secure enclosure” within the context of the claimed scope, the claims are deemed indefinite since the meets and bounds of patent protection being sought by applicant is unascertainable. In Claims 2, 9, 22-23 & 29-30 the phrase “the assembled enclosure” is unclear and confusing since it is not known if this is a reference back to the previously established “secure enclosure” or if it is meant to constitute some other limitation relating to the label rail system. In Claims 29-30, the same issue is raised concerning the clarity of the claimed scope as noted above regarding what may constitute the enclosure. Claim 29 refers to the assembled enclosure1 fastened to a base, which forms an enclosure2 above the deck, and further notes that the below deck enclosure3 houses components; while Claim 30 refers to the assembled enclosure formed by the label rail system components and the vitrine components (these components may in fact constitute two distinct enclosures when read in light of the specification) comprises a multi-plane enclosure. 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: providing 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; providing 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); providing 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); and the label rail body, the rail back support, and the rim modifier are assembled into a rigid interlocked label rail system (e.g., 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 – 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], such that the system is deemed interlocked, i.e., the components are firmly joined together to define an integral assembly) providing a secure enclosure for displaying the object (shown). Fixler teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed system as outlined above, but does not specifically disclose an extruding step relating to the structural “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 a system can be produced as dependent upon costs associated with the manufacturing and/or design preferences of an engineer / designer. As modified, the extruded label rail body, the extruded rail back support, and the extruded rim modifier are deemed to be assembled in a manner to produce a rigid interlocked label rail system in final product form. Regarding Claim 2, as modified, the assembled enclosure is self-supporting (fig. 2); and wherein the assembled enclosure 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 enclosure 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 (such as (45’s) for instance – so far as broadly claimed). 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: providing aluminum [0020] label rail body, rail back support, and rim modifier components (44, 43, 32) to form label rail system components, wherein the label rail system components are configured to be assembled into a rigid interlocked label rail system (e.g., 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 – 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], such that the system is deemed interlocked, i.e., the components are firmly joined together to define an integral assembly); securing the assembled label rail system to a base (12, 22, 29); securing vitrine components to the assembled label rail system for displaying an object {100}; wherein the label rail system components are further configured to support a deck {50’s & 52}, which in turn supports the object to be displayed; wherein the label rail system components are interconnected into the rigid assembled label rail system (as previously described), and wherein the label rail system components and the vitrine components are assembled to provide a secure enclosure for displaying the objects (fig. 1). Fixler teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed system as outlined above, but does not specifically disclose an extruding step relating to the structural “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 design preferences of an engineer / designer. As modified, the extruded label rail body, the extruded rail back support, and the extruded rim modifier are deemed to be assembled in a manner to produce a rigid interlocked label rail system in final product form. Regarding Claim 22, as modified, the assembled enclosure is self-supporting (shown); and wherein the assembled enclosure 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 enclosure 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 enclosure 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 [US 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 as previously noted in the 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., [US 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
It is noted that 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. Applicant has gone on record and indicated that replacement sheets of drawings are being prepared. 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.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims and accompanying arguments, filed May 20, 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 remains in effect; but will be vacated upon the timely submission of the replacement sheets of drawings. The 103 rejections are essentially maintained (revised mapping due to amendments) as noted above with regards to the amended claim scope. The thrust of Applicant’s arguments appears to be centered around the assembling of components into a rigid interlocked label rail system as recited within Claims 1 & 21. Again, the claims are devoid of any real structural interconnection relating to the extruded components and merely recite generic component structures that are assembled into a rigid interlocked label rail system to which the prior art in the final assembled product is deemed to encompass.
Applicant argues that the combination of references are misplaced since they fail to disclose several elements recited in the independent claims. Applicant remarks that Fixler is silent regarding the extruding step and therefore fails to disclose this aspect. The examiner agrees with applicant’s insightfully perceived Fixler’s deficiency and has therefore remedied such aspect under the principles of 103 relied upon throughout the prosecution history. The examiner reminds applicant that one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that the mapped components of Fixler’s device are distinctly different from the components (label rail body, rail back support etc.,) set forth in the claimed scope; to which the examiner remarks that the claimed components lack any structural detail in order to distinguish them from the mapped components. Applicant further argues that “not a single one of them (referring to the label rail body, rail back support, etc.,) are shown in Fixler, and none of the items identified in the OA correspond to those items in the claims”; to which the examiner disagrees since the Office Actions on record clearly indicate a one-to-one mapping of corresponding features. It is suggested that applicant amend the claimed scope of the claims so that components of the label rail system are specifically and distinctly described structurally in order to distinguish such subject matter from features found within the available prior art.
Referring back to 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure – see the Form PTO-892 showing a free-standing vitrine structure.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JAMES O HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6866. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 am - 4:30 pm.
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, 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.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. 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.
JOH
July 10, 2026
/James O Hansen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights