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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7, 2026 has been entered.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 5-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) 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. It is unclear how the panels are interlocking along the edges. This feature is not shown in the figures or discussed in any detail in the specification.
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, 2, 5-6, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wise (1,002,950) in view of DeMars (2014/0306584). Wise teaches a station and bar (Fig. 1) comprising: a metal space frame (Fig. 3; column 1, line 16), the space frame constructed to provide structure for the attachment of interlocking outer panels (12,13,19), said space frame forming a load bearing structure constructed and arranged to transfer loads to other portions of the space frame to increase weight capacity and rigidity to the station and bar, a bar panel (21) secured to a spine portion (Fig. 2) of the space frame such that loads applied to the bar panel are transferred through the space frame and distributed to other portions of the station and bar, a plurality of panels (12,13) secured to a plurality of rib members (3), the rib members secured to the spine (via 20) of the space frame, the panels abut at least along the edges and are secured to the space frame to create a hybrid structure. Wherein the spine includes at least two beams (16) and at least two cantilever beams (18). Wherein each cantilever beam includes a balance beam (20, lower 16a), the balance beam constructed and arranged to transfer unbalanced loads applied to the cantilever beams to the rib members as a torque. For claim 1, Wise fails to teach panels that are interlocking and made of polymeric material. DeMars teaches a plurality of interlocking/interconnected polymeric/plastic panels (132,134,136,152; paragraph 0145). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the station of Wise by using alternate panels thereon, i.e. using the polymeric/plastic interlocking panels of DeMars in place of the panels presently used, to provide a light weight and an easily assembled panel structure on the station and to provide easily replaceable panel sections on the station.
Wherein the spine (16) is oriented to be horizontal with respect to a ground surface and wherein the ribs are oriented to be vertical with respect to a ground surface. Wherein the space frame includes a base assembly (8, 9, 2, 14) secured to a bottom portion of the ribs. Wherein the base assembly includes a cross grid comprising at least two longitudinal members (2, front and back members) and at least two cross members (2, side members and 14), the longitudinal members and the cross members secured together in a suitable manner to transfer load from the ribs to the base assembly. The station including a plurality of support panels (5) positioned to extend rearwardly from the ribs (3 attached to 20), the support panels extending vertically from a top surface of a base panel (horizontal flanges of 3) to a bottom surface of a preparation surface (24,25), the preparation surface positioned to be below the bar panel and oriented parallel thereto. The station including at least one span beam (1, 6), the span beam secured to the bottom surface of the preparation surface (24,25) and supported on an upper surface of the support panels.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wise (1,002,950) in view of DeMars (2014/0306584), as stated above, and further in view of Hayward (1,913,387). As stated above, Wise in view of DeMars teaches the limitations of claim 1, including a station with interlocking panels. For claim 7, Wise in view of DeMars fails to teach a foot rail secured to the panels. Hayward teaches a foot rail (6) secured to interlocking panels (1,5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the station of Wise/Wise in view of Hayward by adding a foot rail, such as taught by Hayward, on the interlocking panels, to provide a location for one to rest one or both of their feet while at the station.
Claims 1, 2, 5 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenny et al (2007/0257585) in view of Parres (7,076,922). Kenny teaches a station and bar (Fig. 1) comprising: a metal space frame (paragraph 0030), the space frame constructed to provide structure for the attachment of outer panels (50), said space frame forming a load bearing structure constructed and arranged to transfer loads to other portions of the space frame to increase weight capacity and rigidity to the station and bar, a bar panel (paragraph 0032) secured to a spine portion (Fig. 3) of the space frame such that loads applied to the bar panel are transferred through the space frame and distributed to other portions of the station and bar, a plurality of panels (50) secured to a plurality of rib members (48), the rib members secured to the spine (via 143) of the space frame, the panels abut at least along the edges and are secured to the space frame to create a hybrid structure. Wherein the spine includes at least two beams (108,120) and at least two cantilever beams (including 116,110 and 112,122). Wherein each cantilever beam includes a balance beam (18,143,169), the balance beam constructed and arranged to transfer unbalanced loads applied to the cantilever beams to the rib members as a torque. For claim 1, Kenny fails to teach panels that are interlocking and made of polymeric material. Parres teaches a plurality of interlocking/interconnected polymeric panels (40 with interlockings members 50,52; column 4, lines 45-51). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the station of Kenny by using alternate panels thereon, i.e. using the interlocking panels of Parres in place of the panels presently used, to provide an easily assembled panel structure on the station and to provide easily replaceable panel sections on the station.
Wherein the spine is oriented to be horizontal with respect to a ground surface and wherein the ribs are oriented to be vertical with respect to a ground surface. Wherein the space frame includes a base assembly (26) secured to a bottom portion of the ribs. The station including a plurality of support panels (50) positioned to extend rearwardly from the ribs, the support panels extending vertically from a top surface of a base panel to a bottom surface of a preparation surface (52), the preparation surface positioned to be below the bar panel and oriented parallel thereto.
The station including at least one span beam (10), the span beam secured to the bottom surface of the preparation surface and supported on an upper surface of the support panels. There is at least one drawer (paragraph 0038) positioned adjacent the support panels.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenny et al (20070257585) in view of Parres (7,076,922), as stated above, and further in view of Hayward (1,913,387). As stated above, Kenny in view of Parres teaches the limitations of claim 1, including a station with interlocking panels. For claim 7, Kenny in view of Parres fails to teach a foot rail secured to the panels. Hayward teaches a foot rail (6) secured to interlocking panels (1,5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the station of Kenny in view of Parres by adding a foot rail, such as taught by Hayward, on the interlocking panels, to provide a location for one to rest one or both of their feet while at the station.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenny et al (20070257585) in view of Parres (7,076,922), as stated above, and further in view of Thuma et al (9,839,294). As stated above, Kenny in view of Parres teaches the limitations of claim 1, including a station with a drawer. For claim 13-15, Kenny in view of Parres fails to teach that the drawer is blow-molded panels and tack-off rows. Thuma teaches a drawer (61) that is made of blow-molded panels and tack-off rows (claim 7). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the station of Kenny in view of Parres by specifically using a blow molded drawer, such as taught by Thuma, in the station, to provide a specific light weight but steady drawer in the station..
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 7, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Addressing the arguments concerning the 112, first paragraph rejection: the examiner contends that because interlocking panels exist in many configurations (as admitted by the applicant in pages 8-9 of the arguments), the silence of the specification and figures to which type of connection is being used between the panels causes confusion to how the station in this invention is assembled. Therefore, the rejection is being maintained. Contrary to what is stated in the arguments, the interlocking panel walls are not discussed or shown. The argument figures directed to are to the drawer front and its side panels, with a clear view of the connection not visible and discussed, and to the base panel and bottom surface attachments, also not clearly shown or discussed.
Addressing the arguments concerning Wise (1,002,950) in view of DeMars (2014/0306584): the examiner argues that the phrase “space frame” does not in-an-of-itself impart structural limitations. There are many structures referred to as space frames, all with various constructions. For example, the frame of Kubik et al (5,220,765) teaches a similar rectangular frame to that of Wise, i.e. both having upper and lower grids with interconnecting members there between, and refers to it as a space frame. It is contended that Wise in view of DeMars teaches the limitations for the structure as presently described in the claims; and therefore, teaches a “space frame” (even though the term was not in use at the time when Wise was issued). There is nothing in the specification or claims that implies that the panels hold up the space frame members or are required to make it a complete and usable structure. Therefore, that the frame of Wise is self-standing with the panels attached thereon does not teach away from the claimed station and does provide a complete and usable structure when used together. Furthermore, since the frame of Wise is made of metal and the panels of DeMars are made of plastic, a hybrid structure is provided.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness 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). In this case, the reference of DeMars is only being used for its teaching of interlocking panels in a station, as best understood (see 112, first paragraph above). That DeMars does not include a frame that transfers weight is irrelevant to the combination. The reference of Wise teaches the other features, including the frame and general panels. Furthermore, as stated above, it would have been obvious to use alternate panels on Wise, i.e. using the interlocking plastic panels of DeMars in place of the panels presently used, to provide an easily assembled panel structure on the station and to provide easily replaceable panel sections on the station.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANET M WILKENS whose telephone number is 571-272-6869. The examiner can normally be reached Mon thru Thurs 7am-5:30pm EST.
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. 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.
Wilkens
January 27, 2026
/JANET M WILKENS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637