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 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, 5-9 and 11-15 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. This feature is not shown in the figures or discussed in any detail in the specification.
Claims 1, 2, 5-9 and 11-15 are 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. For claim 1, it is unclear whether or not the “a cantilever beam” and “a rib” in line 17 are one of the at least two cantilever beams or plurality of ribs claimed previously. Furthermore, lines 19 and 27, “the rib members” are being claimed and it is unclear whether or not this feature is the same feature as the ribs claimed previously.
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 and 11-12 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). The spine portion supported vertically by the plurality of ribs axially aligned and connected to a central portions of each cantilever beam (Fig. 1). Wherein each cantilever beam includes a balance beam (18,143,169), the balance beam connected to an end portion of bar panel and rib and constructed and arranged to transfer unbalanced loads applied to the bar panel to the rib members as a torque. 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. 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 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 May 4, 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 known to one with skill in the art, 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. A clear view of the connection is not visible or discussed. Therefore, the rejection is being maintained.
Addressing the arguments concerning Kenny et al (2007/0257585) in view of Parres (7,076,922): 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 Kenny, 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 Kenny in view of Parres teaches the limitations for the structure as presently described in the claims; and therefore, teaches a “space frame”. 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 Kenny 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 Kenny is made of metal and the panels of Parres 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 Parres is only being used for its teaching of interlocking panels in a station, as best understood (see 112, first paragraph above). That Parres does not include a frame that transfers weight is irrelevant to the combination. The reference of Kenny teaches the other features, including the frame and general panels. Furthermore, as stated above, it would have been obvious to use alternate panels on Kenny, i.e. using the interlocking plastic 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.
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 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
May 8, 2026
/JANET M WILKENS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights