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 § 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "first and second upper shelf" in line 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 15 recites the upper and lower shelves, but claim 19 is only dependent upon claim 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8-10, 12, 13, 17, 21, 22, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent 6,851,653 to Crowley.
Crowley teaches
1. A productivity station, comprising: a bracket (14a, 14b) configured to anchor to a structural member (12a, 12b or wall Col 3, lines24-29) by a fastener (24) passing into the structural member, the bracket extending from the structural member in a first direction; and a workstation component (16) attached to the bracket, the workstation component comprising: a top horizontal panel (16); and a slot (68) defined as an opening into an internal volume below the top horizontal panel, forming a first T-slot along the workstation component, the slot substantially parallel to a length of the workstation component, the length being substantially perpendicular to the first direction (as best seen in figures 1, 4, 9, and 12).
8. wherein the workstation component lower shelf further comprises a downward-facing LED light groove (as best seen in figure 1, the bottom have many grooves, one of which is considered to a groove capable of receiving LED light strip).
9. wherein the bracket is configured to anchor to the wall structural member (wall) by being affixed to a connector piece (12a, 12b) anchored to the wall structural member.
10. further comprising a T-pin (66 or 42, as best seen in figure 2) in the first T-slot and passing into the bracket, the T-pin configured to secure the workstation component to the bracket.
12. wherein the workstation component further comprises multiple horizontal ribs (70 define the slots and acts as a wall between the slots as best in Figure 4) below the top horizontal panel, the T-slot being positioned between two of the multiple ribs.
13. (Currently Amended) A productivity station, comprising: a plurality of brackets (14a, 14b) configured to mount a workbench (16) to a wall structural member (12a, 12b or wall Col 3, lines24-29), the plurality of brackets extending from the wall structural member in a first direction; the workbench to be mounted to the plurality of brackets, the workbench comprising: a top horizontal panel (16); multiple ribs (70 define the slots and acts as a wall between the slots as best in Figure 4) below the top horizontal panel, the ribs comprising vertical ridges; and a bottom-facing opening into an internal volume of the workbench forming a T-slot (68) substantially perpendicular to the first direction (as best seen in figures 1, 4, 9, and 12).
17. wherein the workbench further comprises a bottom horizontal panel (as best seen in figure 1, some ribs are connected at the bottom to define a horizontal bottom panel).
21. further comprising a T-pin (66 or 42, as best seen in figure 2) in the T-slot and passing into one of the plurality of brackets, the T-pin configured to secure the workbench to one of the plurality of brackets.
22. further comprising a T-pin (66 or 42, as best seen in figure 2) configured to secure the bracket to the workstation component upon being rotated relative to the workstation component.
24. further comprising a T-pin (66 or 42 or 266, as best seen in figures 2, 5 and 12) in the first T-slot and passing into the bracket, the T-pin comprising a ramp configured to engage with the workstation component and apply tension to the workstation component in a cammed relationship (as best seen in figures 5-12)
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.
Claim(s) 2-4, 14, 15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 6,851,653 to Crowley in view of US Patent 4,537,379 to Rhoades
Crowely does not expressly disclose multiple shelves with multiple brackets.
Rhoades teaches a connector piece or structural member (20, 22) that receives brackets (19). The brackets hold three or more shelves (18) in a vertical orientation as best seen in figure 1 and 3. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the station of Crowley by adding additional brackets and (upper or lower) shelves as taught by Rhoades to allow for additional storage and since it has been held that a mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04.
Regarding claim 3, Crowley teaches
3. wherein the upper shelf further comprises a downward-facing LED light groove (as best seen in figure 1, the bottom have many grooves, one of which is considered to a groove capable of receiving LED light strip).
Regarding claim 4, Crowley teaches
4. wherein the upper shelf further comprises a downward-facing second T-slot (as best seen in figure 1, the bottom have many grooves, one of which is considered to a groove capable of receiving LED light strip)
Regarding claim 14, Crowley combined with Rhoades teaches
14. further comprising at least one shelf to be mounted to a second plurality of brackets.
Regarding claim 15, Crowley combined with Rhoades teaches
15. further comprising: a first upper shelf configured to be mounted above the workbench; a second upper shelf configured to be mounted above the workbench; and a lower shelf configured to be mounted below the workbench.
Regarding claim 19, Crowley combined with Rhoades teaches
19. wherein at least one of the first upper shelf and the second upper shelf further comprises a finished end (the end of the shelf is considered finished) at an end of the at least one of the first upper shelf and the second upper shelf.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 6,851,653 to Crowley.
Crowely is silent to the material of the bracket and therefore does not expressly disclose the brackets being of a plastic type. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make the bracket a thermoplastic or other type of plastic, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 6,851,653 to Crowley in view of US Patent 1,599,653 to Cranston.
Crowley does not expressly disclose an extension sleeve. Cranston teaches an extension sleeve (13 or 11) configured to secure two components together as best seen in figure 4 and 5. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to add an extension sleeve as taught by Cranston to allow the shelves to form a longer shelf.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/03/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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 TIMOTHY MICHAEL AYRES whose telephone number is (571)272-8299. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11:30-8.
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, Dan 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. 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.
/T.M.A/ Examiner, Art Unit 3637 /DANIEL J TROY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3637