DETAILED ACTION
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) 13 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson (U.S. 7,581,357) in view of Lessard et al. (U.S. 5,036,634).
In re Claim 13, Richardson teaches a storage shed comprising: a floor panel (102) configured to form a floor of the storage shed; a number of uprights (300) having an elongated body configured to be fixed directly to the blow-molded floor panel, a first side panel (102) and a second blow-molded side panel (102), and an anchor (116), the floor panel including a bottom surface and a top surface and defining an aperture (136), the anchor including a base (130,134) and a post (132) extending therefrom, the base configured to be disposed below at least a portion of the bottom surface of the floor panel, and the post configured to extend through the aperture and into a receptacle defined by the wall upright. The examiner notes that Figure 7 of Richardson show they base disposed below a portion of the bottom surface of the floor panel as well as Figure 9A of the instant application. Both appear to be contacting the floor and flush with the floor panel bottom. (Figures 3-10)
Richardson does not teach that the number of uprights including a wall upright; wherein the wall upright is configured to be disposed between the first blow-molded side panel and the second blow-molded side panel so that the first and second blow-molded side panels are fixed to one another to form at least a portion of a wall of the storage shed.
Lessard teaches wall upright (32) is configured to be disposed between the first side panel (33) and the second side panel (33) so that the first and second blow-molded side panels are fixed to one another to form at least a portion of a wall of the storage shed. (Figures 1-6)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Richardson with the wall uprights taught by Lessard in order to structurally reinforce the wall.
In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not
germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this
limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even
though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process,
determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability
of a product, i.e uprights or panels, does not depend on its method of
production, i.e. extruded or blow molded. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966
(Federal Circuit 1985). This applies to Claim 13 as well as all other claims
with limitations directed to blow-molded and extruded processes.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for the
wall and corner uprights to be made from aluminum 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Aluminum is a lightweight and durable
material that resists corrosion.
In re Claim 15, Richardson modified by Lessard has been previously discussed. Richardson teaches the first upright (32 including a first slot (34) and a second slot (38), the first and second slots adjacent to the receptacle. (Figure 2)
In re Claim 16 and 19 Richardson modified by Lessard has been previously discussed. Richardson teaches the first side panel including a first edge portion and the second blow-molded side panel including a second edge portion. These are the edge portions that fit into the first and second slots (34,38) of the upright (32). These edge portion are tongues, however should the applicant dispute this, the examiner takes official notice that tongue and groove connections are well know in the construction arts.
In the combination a first tongue extending from a main body of the first wall panel (33) is inserted into a groove (35) defined by the corner upright (31) and a second tongue extending from the main body of the first wall panel (33) is inserted into a groove (38) defined by the upright (32).
In re Claim 17, Richardson teaches attaching a number of floor panels (102) to one another to form a floor of the storage shed; inserting a number of wall anchors (116 through a number of anchor apertures (136) defined by the floor, the number of wall anchors each including a post (132); attaching an corner upright (300) to a first wall anchor of the number of wall anchors disposed in a corner region of the floor(Column 9, Lines 38-48) ; attaching, by at least one form-fit condition, a first wall panel(102 Richardson) to the corner upright(300). (Figures 3-10)
Extrusion and blow molding are well known and common practices and the examiner takes official notice of this. Furthermore, in this claim, they are adjectives describing the products rather than method steps. As was stated previously, In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this
limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even
though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process,
determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability
of a product, i.e uprights or panels, does not depend on its method of
production, i.e. extruded or blow molded. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
Richardson does not teach attaching a first extruded wall upright of the number of wall uprights to a second wall anchor of the number of wall anchors, the second wall anchor spaced apart from the first wall anchor; and attaching, by at least one form-fit condition, a blow-molded first wall panel to the corner upright and the first extruded wall upright.
Lessard teaches wall upright (32) that is disposed between the first side panel (33) and the second side panel (33) (Figures 1-6)
It would therefore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to install wall upright so that the wall panel would be disposed between the corner upright and wall uprights In the combination, the wall upright would be attached to a second wall anchor(just as the Richardson corner uprights were), the second wall anchor spaced apart from the first wall anchor; and attaching, by at least one form-fit condition, a first wall panel(33 Lessard or 102 Richardson) to the corner upright and the first extruded wall upright.
In re Claim 18, Richardson modified by Lessard has been previously discussed. Lessard teaches inserting an end portion of the first wall panel (33) into a channel (17) In the combination, the channel would be in the defined by the floor.
In re Claim 20, Richardson modified by Lessard has been previously discussed. Richardson teaches inserting a retaining flange (126) extending from a post of the second wall anchor into an aperture (210,336) defined by the upright (300). Therefore, in the combination they would be inserted into the aperture defined by the first extruded wall upright.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 4-10 are allowed.
The prior art of record fails to teach or adequately suggest a storage shed with the combination of characteristics specified in the independent claim. The applicant has amended independent claims to incorporate subject matter previously indicated as allowable. Of particular note are the requirement that header further includes one or more tabs extending from the bottom region for insertion into the door-jamb uprights. Nor does it teach aa wall upright between first and second wall panels, and a roofline panel with a top and bottom portions where the bottom portion directly connects to the end portion of the first wall upright. The top portions of the first and second roofline panels have a notch; and a first lateral roof beam configured to extend between the first and second roofline panels. A first portion of the first lateral roof beam is at least partially disposed in the notch defined by the top portion of the first roofline panel and a second portion of the first lateral roof beam is at least partially disposed in the notch of the top portion of the second roofline panel. There is no cogent reasoning that is unequivocally independent of hindsight that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the prior art to obtain the applicant's invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 3/2/2026 with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view the amended claim language requiring a new ground(s) of rejection based on the Richardson and Lessard references.
Conclusion
The prior art included on the attached PTO-892 is made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam Barlow whose telephone number571-270-1158. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 9 am – 4 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Glessner can be reached on 571-272-6754. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Adam Barlow/
Art Unit 3633
/BRIAN E GLESSNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633