DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are still objected to because the application contains photographs in black and white. Photographs are permitted in utility applications if they are the only practical medium for illustrating the claimed 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. 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 11-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains 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 11 & 21, use of the phrase “comprise critical dimensions and critical surfaces for interlocking…” is deemed to constitute a new matter situation since such language relating to the label rail bodies, the rail back supports, and the rim modifiers 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 11-30 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 11 & 21, use of the phrase “comprise critical dimensions and critical surfaces for interlocking…” in relation to the label rail bodies, the rail back supports, and the rim modifiers 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 11-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fixler [US 2019/0090659] in view of Arage [US 3,248,815]. Fixler teaches of a display structure (fig. 1) for providing a secure enclosure for displaying an object, comprising: a housing structure (12) configured to be fixed to a foundation (such as a floor or ground surface for instance via (22)) and supporting an exhibit enclosure (18); the exhibit enclosure fixed to the housing structure (fig. 1) and comprising: a label rail system (primarily identified as main features (14, 42) as shown in fig. 3) comprising at least two label rail bodies (44’s), at least two rail back supports (43’s), at least two rim modifiers (32’s) and at least two braces (45’s), secured to the housing structure (the assembled components form the lower section of (16) which is secured to the housing structure - fig. 2), wherein the label rail bodies, the rail back supports, and the rim modifiers comprise critical dimensions and critical surfaces for interlocking these components into a rigid label rail system (i.e., the label rail bodies, the rail back supports, and the rim modifies 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 define 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 horizonal surface aspect of (43) that is connected to both the outer and inner vertical sections as mapped – see [0021]); a deck (50’s & 52) secured to the label rail system (fig. 2) and forming an base (such as (52)) above the housing structure and framed by the label rail system (note the segmented space that is formed by the combined deck and label rail system – fig. 3), the deck supporting an object (100) being exhibited (fig. 1); and a vitrine (viewed as the glass panels of (18)) in three or more pieces (56’s, 58), secured to the rim modifiers (by way of the intervening and integrally connected components – fig. 4). Fixler teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed display structure as mapped above; including the capacity to contain mechanical components and electrical components within the housing structure due to the large empty space provided within the housing structure and access to this space {removable panels} if so desired by an end user – note fig. 3 (it is noted that these components need not be working, functional and/or coupled to anything – they can just be in present in a stored capacity for instance), but does not specifically show generic mechanical or electrical components within the housing structure {on par with applicant’s non-depiction of the components}. As to this aspect, Arage is cited as an evidence reference for a display structure (fig. 2) having a vitrine (upper clear panels of (10)) placed upon a housing structure (16) in an analogous art. The housing structure including mechanical components (26, 31) and electrical components (36’s) housed within the structure. 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 within the housing structure 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 incorporate components that could be used 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 if so desired by a user, or to just store these components within the space for future purposes (since the components serve no critical or functional purpose with respect to the display structure). Regarding Claim 12, as modified, the exhibit enclosure is self-supporting (fig. 2); and wherein the exhibit enclosure is configured to be affixed to the housing structure in a horizontal position and is also configured to be affixed to the housing structure at any angle from the horizontal position (such as when the housing structure is tilted in a non-horizontal position for instance if so desired by an end user). Regarding Claim 13, as modified, the label rail bodies, the rail back supports, the rim modifiers and the braces of the exhibit enclosure comprise multiple components of the label rail system and wherein the multiple components of the label rail system and the vitrine are secured to the housing structure and each other (figs. 1 & 3). Regarding Claim 14, as modified, the label rail system and the vitrine are assembled together with the deck to provide a secure enclosure for displaying the object that is also environmentally stable (i.e., it will stay in place unless acted upon by an outside force - fig. 1). Regarding Claim 15, as modified, wherein the housing structure includes a space within (note the interior shown in fig. 3) that can house support equipment for the display of the object (same obvious rational as set forth in Claim 11). Regarding Claim 16, as modified, the vitrine is configured to completely enclose the object being displayed (fig. 1). Regarding Claim 17, as modified, the rim modifier could be cut to size with the aid of a rim modifier jig if so desired by an end user. It is noted that the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself within a product claim; therefore, the limitation of the rim modifier being cut to size has not been given patentable weight. Regarding Claim 18, as modified, the material of the label rail system components {viewed now as the already established features of the label rail system} is comprised of aluminum (aluminum – [0020]). Regarding Claim 19, as modified, the exhibit enclosure is fastened to the housing structure (fig. 1) via intervening components – in a manner similar to applicant’s representation, forming a space within which is above the deck and a space below the deck (these spaces or compartments as shown in the figs. 1-3); wherein the below deck space can house the mechanical and electrical components related to the object being displayed in the above deck space – as perfected by Arage. Regarding Claim 20, as modified, the above deck space comprises the multi-plane vitrine / exhibit enclosure for displaying the object. As to Claim 21, the position is taken that Fixer teaches the claimed subject matter where an original mapping is repeated along with a new mapping in order to account for amendments applied to the depending claims, Fixler teaches of a display structure (fig. 1) for providing a secure enclosure for displaying an object, comprising: a housing structure (12) configured to be fixed to a foundation; an exhibit enclosure (18); the exhibit enclosure secured to the housing structure, comprising: a label rail system (primarily identified as main features (14, 42) as shown in fig. 3) integrated with the exhibit enclosure, the label rail system comprising: at least two or more label rail bodies (44’s) constructed solely of an inert material (metal); and a rim modifier (32’s) secured to each of the two label rail bodies, the rim modifier constructed solely of an inert material (metal); and a rail back support (43’s) secured to each of the at least two label rail bodies, the rail back support constructed solely of an inert material (metal), wherein the label rail bodies, the rim modifier, and the rail back support comprise critical dimensions and critical surfaces for interlocking these components into a rigid label rail system (i.e., the label rail bodies, the rim modifier, and the rail back support 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 define 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 horizonal surface aspect of (43) that is connected to both the outer and inner vertical sections as mapped – see [0021]); a deck (50’s & 52) secured to the label rail system (fig. 2) and forming a base (such as (52)) above the deck and framed by the label rail system (note the segmented space that is formed by the combined deck and label rail system – fig. 3), the deck supporting an object (100); and a vitrine (viewed as the glass panels of (18)) secured to each of the rim modifiers (by way of the intervening and integrally connected components – fig. 4). Fixler teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed display structure as mapped above; including the capacity to contain mechanical components and electrical components within the housing structure due to the large empty space provided within the housing structure and access to this space {removable panels} – fig. 3 (it is noted that these components need not be working, functional and/or coupled to anything – they can just be in present / stored for instance), but does not specifically show generic mechanical or electrical components within the housing structure {on par with applicant’s non-depiction of the components}. As to this aspect, Arage is cited as an evidence reference for a display structure (fig. 2) having a vitrine (upper clear panels of (10)) placed upon a housing structure (16) in an analogous art. The housing structure including mechanical components (26, 31) and electrical components (36’s) housed within the structure. 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 within the housing structure 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 incorporate components that could be used 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 if so desired by a user, or to just store these components within the space for future purposes (since the components serve no critical or functional purpose with respect to the display structure). Regarding Claim 22, as modified, the exhibit enclosure is self-supporting; wherein the exhibit enclosure is configured to be affixed to the housing structure in a horizontal position (shown). Regarding Claim 23, as modified, the exhibit enclosure is self-supporting; wherein the exhibit enclosure may also be configured to be affixed to the housing structure at any angle from the horizontal position (such as when the housing structure is tilted in a non-horizontal position for instance if so desired by an end user). Regarding Claim 24, as modified, wherein the label rail bodies, the rim modifier, and the rail back support of the exhibit enclosure comprise multiple components of the label rail system and combined with the vitrine form part of the display structure; wherein the multiple components of the label rail system are attached with braces (45’s). Regarding Claim 25, as modified, the multiple components of the display structure are assembled together with the deck to provide a secure space within the exhibit enclosure for displaying the object that is also environmentally stable (i.e., it will stay in place unless acted upon by an outside force - fig. 1). Regarding Claim 26, the housing structure includes a space (note the interior shown in fig. 3) that can house support equipment for the display of the object (same rational as set forth in Claim 21). 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 bodies, the rim modifier, and the rail back support is comprised of an inert material (aluminum). Regarding Claim 29, as modified, the exhibit enclosure is fastened to the housing structure (fig. 1) via intervening components – in a manner similar to applicant’s representation, forming a space above the deck and a space below the deck (these spaces or compartments as shown in the figs. 1-3); wherein the below deck space can house the mechanical and electrical components related to the object being displayed in the above deck space – as perfected by Arage. Regarding Claim 30, as modified, the rail back support component can be utilized to connect two of the label rail bodies together without fasteners.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims and accompanying arguments, filed January 08, 2026, with respect to outstanding drawing objections, 112(b) rejections & 103 rejections have been fully considered and are partially 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. All of the prior 112(b) rejections have been obviated and withdrawn. 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 claims are devoid of any real structural interconnection relating to the exhibit enclosure components and merely recite the functional condition that they interlock together to form a rigid assembled label rail system. The examiner maintains that the prior art exhibits components of a system that are coupled together such that a final end product constitutes an assembly of parts that are interlocked together, i.e., they form a display case to which an object is to be housed and displayed. Furthermore, the position is taken that while applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered, they are deemed moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references as they are presently mapped within the current rejection.
In order to maintain transparency, the identified limitations as they relate to the reference numbers are reproduced again:
107 – vitrine, vitrine pieces
1502 – exhibition case, housing structure, first enclosure
1504 – label rail system, label rail body system
1505 – second enclosure
1506 – deck
1508 – exhibit enclosure, third enclosure, and same component as vitrine (107)
1510 – object, exhibit
As such, the use of these terms within the claims were relied upon for mapping purposes.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, 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). Regarding the reliance of maintaining “mechanical components”, “electrical components” & “support equipment” within the claimed scope, it is noted that these features are not actually shown in the drawings, to which applicant has repeatedly indicated that they are not seeking a patent of such components, but are seeking a patent on the display structure for containing such components. The examiner maintains the lack of criticality for such features and applicant’s lack of patentability statement remains an admission of fact for recognizing generic mechanical components, electrical components & support equipment as admitted prior art.
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
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.
JOH
February 6, 2026
/James O Hansen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637