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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
1. 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.
2. Claims 1-3, 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent 4,190,167 (Wells).
With respect to claim 1, Wells discloses a component (shelf 10, Fig.1) comprising: an insertable and detachable partition panel (18, Fig.1), comprising: a substantially rectangular (“the divider 18 includes an outer heavy duty wire 20 which extends in a largely rectangular loop”, Col.3 lines 22-24) flat base body (18) with a lower edge, an upper edge, a front edge, a back edge, and two parallel side faces, an insertion hook (32, Fig.3) that is located on the base body and that opens toward the front edge, a support extension (34, Fig.4, Fig.1) disposed on the lower edge and substantially perpendicular to at least one of the two parallel side faces, and a spring (48, Fig.4) located on the base body (Fig.1, FIg.4) and that generates a force toward the front edge (forward “F” direction, see arrow in Fig.4, FIg.5), wherein the spring (48) is disposed on the support extension (34, Fig.4, Fig.5). Wells does not explicitly teach the divider is for a laboratory chamber. However a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this instant case, the shelf and the partition can be used in a laboratory chamber.
With respect to claim 2, wherein at least two insertion hooks (28, 32, Fig.3) are disposed on the base body.
With respect to claim 3, wherein the insertion hook (28/32) is disposed on the lower edge (Fig.3).
With respect to claim 7, wherein a free end of the spring is a spring seat (Fig.5).
With respect to claim 13, wherein the partition panel (18) is a fabricated metal (Col.3 lines 66-Col.4 line 10).
3. Claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2019/0110595 A1 (Nilsson).
With respect to claim 1, Nilsson shows a component (9, FIg.1), comprising: an insertable and detachable partition panel (1, FIg.1), comprising: a substantially rectangular flat base body (3, Fig.1) with a lower edge, an upper edge, a front edge, a back edge, and two parallel side faces, an insertion hook (front 7) that is located on the base body and that opens toward the front edge, a support extension (5, Fig.1) disposed on the lower edge and substantially perpendicular to at least one of the two parallel side faces, and a spring (other 7) located on the base body and that generates a force toward the front edge, wherein the spring (7, comprised of “spring part 15” and tongue 17, Fig.2, FIg.4 generates a clamping force inward towards the front of the partition panel) is disposed on the support extension (5, Fig.1-Fig.4).
With respect to claim 3, wherein the insertion hook (front 7) is disposed on the lower edge (Fig.2, Fig.4).
With respect to claim 4, wherein the spring (rear 7) is a canted strap (at 23 and 25, FIg.4).
With respect to claim 5, wherein the spring is a double-canted strap (at 23 and at 25, Fig.4).
With respect to claim 7, wherein a free end (19) of the spring is a spring seat.
With respect to claim 9, wherein at least two support extensions (5 on opposite sides of plate 3, FIg.2) disposed on the lower edge and substantially perpendicular to at least one of the two parallel side faces (Fig.2), wherein the least two support extensions point in different directions from each other.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0110595 (Nilsson) in further in view of US 2007/0175844 A1 (Schneider).
With respect to claim 2, Nilsson doesn’t show another insertion hook. Schneider teaches insertion hooks (160, Fig.1) disposed on the base body (102). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include another insertion hook to the base body of Nilsson, such as taught by Schneider, in order to releasably hook and hold the partition panel in place and prevent sideway movement of the partition panel in the engaged position.
With respect to claim 11, Nilsson doesn’t teach wherein the base body comprises a plurality of perforations. Schneider teaches the base body (102, FIg.1) comprises plurality of perforations (Fig.1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include plurality of perforations to the base body of Nilsson, such as taught by Schneider, in order provide ventilation between dividers and decrease the weight of the partition panel (section 0028 of Schneider).
6. Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0110595 (Nilsson) in further in view of US 2016/0150878 A1 (Clark).
With respect to claim 11, Nilsson doesn’t teach wherein the base body comprises a plurality of perforations. Clark teaches the base body (12, FIg.1) comprises plurality of perforations (cutouts surrounded by ridges 18a-18e, FIg.1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include plurality of perforations to the base body of Nilsson, such as taught by Clark, in order provide ventilation between partition panels and decrease the weight of the partition panel.
With respect to claim 12 and 13, Modified Nilsson doesn’t explicitly teach the base body is made of metal. Clark teaches wherein the base body is a perforated metal plate (section 0020). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make the partition panel out of metal, such as taught by Clark, in order to provide a more durable sturdy material that is resistant to damage and corrosion.
With respect to claim 14, the combination teaches wherein the partition panel is a stamped-and-bent element (Fig.1, Nilsson/Fig.1, Clark).
With respect to claim 15, the combination (Nilsson) teaches wherein the partition panel (1, FIg.1) is a single piece.
7. Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0110595 (Nilsson) in further in view of US 6,164,215 (Cook).
With respect to claim 11, Nilsson doesn’t teach wherein the base body comprises a plurality of perforations. Cook teaches the partition panel (30) includes a base body (30, FIg.2) comprises plurality of perforations (106a-106d, FIg.2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include plurality of perforations to the base body of Nilsson, such as taught by Cook, in order provide ventilation between the partition panels and decrease the weight of the partition panel.
With respect to claim 12 and 13, Modified Nilsson doesn’t explicitly teach the base body is made of metal. Cook teaches wherein the base body is a perforated metal plate (Col.3 lines 24-29). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make the partition panel out of metal, such as taught by Cook, in order to provide a more durable sturdy material that is resistant to damage and corrosion.
With respect to claim 14, the combination teaches wherein the partition panel is a stamped-and-bent element (Fig.1, Nilsson/Fig.2, Cook).
With respect to claim 15, the combination (Nilsson) teaches wherein the partition panel (1, FIg.1) is a single piece.
8. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2005/0084420 A1 (Osawa) in view of US Patent 3,559,815 (Huddleston) in further view of US Patent 3,501,019 (Armstrong).
With respect to claim 16, Osawa shows a laboratory chamber (1, Fig.1), comprising: a laboratory chamber housing (2); an outer door (7, Fig.1) and an inner door (3); an interior volume (4) that can be closed off by the inner door, wherein the interior volume comprises a bottom wall (at 13, Fig.1), a top wall (at 2, Fig.1), a back wall (at 11A) and two side walls: an intermediate tray (5, Fig.1) disposed between the two side walls and parallel to the bottom wall, wherein the intermediate tray (5) comprise a first cut-out (holes on 5) and an abutment edge (back edge). With respect to claim 16, Osawa doesn’t show a partition panel.
With respect to claim 16, Huddleston shows a partition panel (14, FIg.1) being an insertable and detachable partition panel, comprising: a flat base body (14) with a lower edge, an upper edge, a front edge, a back edge, and two parallel side faces, an insertion hook (front hook 16, Fig.1, Fig.2) that is located on the base body and that opens toward the front edge (Fig.2), a support extension (see annotated figure 1 below) disposed on the lower edge and substantially perpendicular to at least one of the two parallel side faces, and a spring (rear clip 16, FIg.2) located on the base body and that generates a force toward the front edge (clip 16 is a resilient material that is stretched out so that end 26, Fig. 2 is attached to edge of the surface 12 thus there is a force generated inwards towards the front of the partition panel by the leg 25 of the clip 16), wherein the spring (16) is disposed on the back edge in spatial proximity to the lower edge (Fig.2), wherein the spring is approximately V-shaped (see figure 4) having a first bend at a first angle (bend between legs 24 and 25, Fig.4) and a second bend at a second angle (angle between leg 25 and 26, Fig.4); wherein the partition panel (14) is disposed on the tray (12) such that the spring (at 26, Fig.1, FIg.2) is in contact on the abutment edge (Fig.1, Fig.2).
PNG
media_image1.png
560
711
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 16, the combination doesn’t show the insertion hook engages a cutout on the tray and that the base body is substantially rectangular shaped. Armstrong shows an insertion hook (52/54, Fig.1) engages a cutout (16) on the tray (64, FIg.1, Fig.4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include another insertion hook to the partition panel of modified Osawa, such that it can be inserted into the cut-out in the tray, such as taught by Armstrong, in order to securely fasten the partition panel on the tray and prevent unwanted sideway movement. Furthermore, Armstrong teaches the base body (12, FIg.1) is substantially rectangular (Fig.1). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the shape of the base body of modified Osawa, substantially rectangular shaped such at taught by Armstrong, since such a modification involves a mere change in shape of an object. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
9. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 3,559,815 (Huddleston) in further view of US 2013/0020270 A1 (Valiulis).
With respect to claim 17, Huddleston shows component (12), comprising: an insertable and detachable partition panel (14, FIg.1), comprising: a flat base body (14) with a lower edge, an upper edge, a front edge, a back edge, and two parallel side faces, an insertion hook (front hook 16, FIg.1, Fig.2) that is located on the base body and that opens toward the front edge (Fig.2), a support extension (see annotation above) disposed on the lower edge and substantially perpendicular to at least one of the two parallel side faces, and a spring (rear clip 16, FIg.2) located on the base body and that generates a force toward the front edge (clip 16 is a resilient material that is stretched out so that end 26, Fig. 2 is attached to edge of the surface 12 thus there is a force generated inwards towards the front of the partition panel by the leg 25 of the clip 16), wherein the spring (16) is disposed on the back edge in spatial proximity to the lower edge (Fig.2), wherein the spring is approximately V-shaped (see figure 4) having a first bend at a first angle (bend between legs 24 and 25, Fig.4) and a second bend at a second angle (angle between leg 25 and 26, Fig.4). With respect to claim 17, Huddleston does not explicitly teach the partition panel is for a laboratory chamber. However a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between he claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this instant case, the shelf and the partition can be used in a laboratory chamber. With respect to claim 17, Huddleston doesn’t show the shape of the base body is substantially rectangular. Valiulis shows a substantially rectangular shaped base body (16, Fig.1). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the shape of the base body of Huddleston, substantially rectangular shaped such at taught by Valiulis, since such a modification involves a mere change in shape of an object. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
10. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2005/0084420 A1 (Osawa) in view of US 2019/0110595 (Nilsson) in further view of US Patent 3,501,019 (Armstrong).
With respect to claim 18, Osawa shows a laboratory chamber (1, Fig.1), comprising: a laboratory chamber housing (2); an outer door (7, Fig.1) and an inner door (3); an interior volume (4) that can be closed off by the inner door, wherein the interior volume comprises a bottom wall (at 13, Fig.1), a top wall (at 2, Fig.1), a back wall (at 11A) and two side walls: an intermediate tray (5, Fig.1) disposed between the two side walls and parallel to the bottom wall, wherein the intermediate tray (5) comprise a first cut-out (holes on 5) and an abutment edge. With respect to claim 18, Osawa doesn’t show a partition panel.
With respect to claim 18, Nilsson shows a partition panel (1, FIg.1) being an insertable and detachable partition panel, comprising: a substantially rectangular flat base body (3, Fig.1) with a lower edge, an upper edge, a front edge, a back edge, and two parallel side faces, an insertion hook (front 7) that is located on the base body and that opens toward the front edge, a support extension (5, Fig.1) disposed on the lower edge and substantially perpendicular to at least one of the two parallel side faces, and a spring (rear 7) located on the base body and that generates a force toward the front edge, wherein the spring (7, comprised of “spring part 15” and tongue 17, Fig.2, FIg.4) is disposed on the support extension (5, Fig.1-Fig.4); wherein the partition panel (1, FIg.1) is disposed on the tray (9, FIg.1) such that the spring (at 17) is in contact on the abutment edge (13, Fig.1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include a partition panel to the intermediate tray of Osawa, such as taught by Nilsson, in order to divide the tray into sections for better organization of items in the chamber.
With respect to claim 18, the combination doesn’t show the insertion hook engages a cutout on the tray. Armstrong shows an insertion hook (52/54, Fig.1) engages a cutout (16) on the tray (64, FIg.1, Fig.4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include another insertion hook to the partition panel of modified Osawa, such that it can be inserted into the cut-out in the tray, such as taught by Armstrong, in order to securely fasten the partition panel on the tray and prevent unwanted sideway movement.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIWOT E TEFERA whose telephone number is (571)270-3320. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6PM.
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 on 5712703742. 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.
/HIWOT E TEFERA/Examiner, Art Unit 3637