DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 17 June 2026 has been entered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Reference number 34 is used for both interior walls 34 (at least [0042]) and stabilizing projection 34 (at least [0045]). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 21-29 and 31-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0099961 A1 (Church) in view of US 2020/0187675 A1 (Obitts) and US 2007/0176065 A1 (Schneider).
With respect to claim 21: Church discloses a method of installing a gravity feed shelf (one of the shelves 22) and a support structure (vertical shelving support structure 14), the gravity feed shelf including at least one bracket element (bracket 18) extending along a longitudinal axis (axis in the front-and-rear direction of bracket 18), the bracket element comprising: a substantially planar body (comprised in side wall 58, see the annotated images below) having a proximal end (rear end 30) and a distal end (front end 26); a ramp arm (the transition area between side wall 58 and support member 34, see the annotated images below) extending between the proximal end and the distal end (the identified “ramp arm” extends between ends 26 and 30 in the first annotated image), the ramp arm oriented to slope downwardly from the proximal end toward the distal end (see the annotated images below); an attachment element (at least one of the coupling members 70) at the proximal end including at least one tab (at least one coupling member 70) configured to engage the support structure ([0021]); an elevation portion (see the annotated images below) vertically disposed between the ramp arm and the attachment element, the elevation portion configured to contact the support structure (as in Fig. 1, contacting above the aperture engaged by the uppermost coupling member 70) and position the ramp arm at an acute angle relative to the support structure when contacting the support structure (Fig. 1); a support flange (support member 34) extending substantially perpendicularly from the ramp arm and configured to support a shelf (shelf 22); and a horizontal shelf (shelf 22) coupled to the bracket element, the horizontal shelf including a first end (front end) and a second end (rear end).
PNG
media_image1.png
277
906
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
355
733
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
244
634
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Church does not disclose the shelving assembly 10 used “within a refrigerated display case including pre-existing shelfs” as claimed. Church does not disclose the support structure 14 is “coupled to an interior wall of a refrigerated display case” as claimed.
Church [0002] teaches that the inclination of the shelves enhances product visibility and provides ready access to displayed products.
Obitts [0002]-[0004] and [0055] disclose a grid assembly mounted to a support structure, such as a vertical wall, in the interior of a refrigerated or freezer case in a retail merchandise environment. This is similar to displaying non-refrigerated items. The upright supports 106a-c of Obitts’ grid assembly are analogous and/or functionally equivalent to Church’s support structures 14. Obitts Fig. 1 shows a “pre-existing” shelf 108 attached to supports 106a-c, and Obitts [0053] discloses multiple shelves of shorter lengths attached to the grid assembly. Obitts [0078] describes a half-length shelf 108.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify at least one of Church’s shelves 22 and the associated brackets 18 to be attached inside a refrigerated or freezer case like the one in Obitts’ disclosure, in order to provide Church’s disclosed enhanced product visibility and ready access to refrigerated products.
This meets the shelf 22, as claimed, within a refrigerated display case (as in Obitts) including pre-existing shelfs (shelves 108 and/or the additional shelves disclosed by Obitts). This meets, as claimed, the support structure (Obitts’ grid assembly) coupled to an interior wall of a refrigerated display case (Obitts [0002]-[0005]).
Church does not disclose “the method comprising the steps of: identifying a pre-existing bracket mounting position adjacent to a pre-existing shelf within a refrigerated display case; engaging the support structure in an area that is immediately adjacent to the pre-existing shelf with the attachment element of the bracket element; positioning the bracket element at a vertically offset position above the pre-existing bracket mounting position such that the first end of the horizontal shelf is aligned with a front edge of the pre-existing shelf, wherein the angles of the horizontal shelf and the pre-existing shelf with respect to the support structure differ” as claimed.
Church [0002] states that shelving assemblies typically include rows of adjacent shelves. While Obitts Fig. 1 shows a single shelf 108, Obitts [0053] discloses multiple shelves 108 attached at the upright supports 106a-c of the grid assembly. Obitts Fig. 16-17 show a shelf in a horizontal configuration (Fig. 16), and also in a gravity feed configuration (Fig. 17). Obitts [0078] describes a half-length shelf 108.
Schneider Fig. 10 shows an inclined shelf 300a positioned side-by-side with a horizontal shelf 300b. The front edge of shelf 300a is aligned with the front edge of shelf 300b. The configuration of Schneider Fig. 10 enables items on shelf 300a to be gravity-fed, while items on shelf 300b are not gravity-fed ([0029]). The inclined shelf 300a is positioned in apertures 160 that are higher in position on the bracket 100b, as compared to the apertures 160 to which shelf 300b is mounted ([0032]).
See Obitts Fig. 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the position of the shelf 22 added to the upright supports 106a-c such that the front edge of the added shelf 22 is aligned with the front edge of one of Obitts’ half-length shelves, in order to provide a configuration similar to Schneider Fig. 10. In the same way as the embodiment of Schneider Fig. 10, this enables items on shelf 22 to be gravity-fed, and items on said half-length shelf to not be gravity-fed.
Such a modification meets, as claimed, the method comprising the steps of: identifying a pre-existing bracket mounting position adjacent to a pre-existing shelf within a refrigerated display case (looking for apertures in the upright supports 106a-c adjacent to the apertures supporting the half-length shelf in the refrigerated/freezer); engaging the support structure in an area that is immediately adjacent to the pre-existing shelf with the attachment element of the bracket element (engaging the coupling members 70 of Church’s bracket 18 to the apertures in supports 106a-c adjacent to said half-length shelf); positioning the bracket element at a vertically offset position above the pre-existing bracket mounting position (similarly to Schneider’s shelf 300a being positioned higher than shelf 300b on the bracket 100b) such that the first end of the horizontal shelf is aligned with a front edge of the pre-existing shelf (similarly to Schneider’s shelves 300a, 300b), wherein the angles of the horizontal shelf and the pre-existing shelf with respect to the support structure differ (one is inclined, one is not).
With respect to claim 22: Church, as modified, meets wherein positioning the bracket element comprises selecting the vertically offset position to maintain alignment of the front edge of the horizontal shelf with the pre-existing shelf while achieving the acute ramp angle (similarly to Schneider Fig. 10 and [0029]-[0032]).
With respect to claim 23: Church does not disclose the acute angle is “about eight degrees” as claimed.
Obitts does not specify the angle of the shelf 108 in Fig. 17, but discloses the ability for a user to set the angle using the pin 206 in different apertures 208 ([0081]-[0082]). Schneider also teaches adjusting the angle of a shelf as desired by a user, using shims 150. Each shim adjust the angle Θ between about 0.5 degrees and 10 degrees (Fig. 1 and [0025]-[0026]). The angle is adjusted based on the product being displayed, the height of the shelf 300, etc. (Schneider [0029]). For example, a shelf positioned above eye-level of a user may have a larger angle so that the user can clearly view the product (Schneider [0029]).
Based on the disclosures of Obitts and/or Schneider, it is obvious for one skilled in the art to vary the angle of the shelf based on the application of said shelf. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Church’s brackets 18 to angle the shelf 22 at about eight degrees, in order to accommodate certain types of products, shelf heights, user desire, etc.
With respect to claim 24: Church, as modified, meets further comprising inserting the at least one tab (at least one of Church’s coupling members 70) into an aperture of the support structure (one of Obitts’ plurality of apertures 118 of the upright supports 106a-c).
With respect to claim 25: Church, as modified, meets wherein the at least one tab (coupling members 70) and the substantially planar body (side wall 58) are coplanar (Church Figs. 2-9).
With respect to claim 26: Church, as modified, meets wherein the at least one tab comprises a positioning notch (positioning notches indicated by the arrows in the annotated image below, from Church Fig. 5) configured to retain the bracket element in a fixed position with respect to the support structure (prevents bracket 18 from being pulled forward out of an aperture).
PNG
media_image4.png
240
634
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 27: Church, as modified, meets wherein the positioning notch extends in a substantially vertical direction from a base of the at least one tab (see the annotated image above).
With respect to claim 28: Church, as modified, meets wherein the at least one tab comprises a plurality of tabs (two coupling members 70) disposed one on top of another in a vertically stacked arrangement (Church Figs. 2-9).
With respect to claim 29: Church does not disclose the height defined by the two coupling members 70 meets “3.5 inches or less” as claimed.
Church [0023] discloses changing the size of apertures 82 in the shelf bracket 18. The coupling members 70 are spaced to correspond with apertures in the vertical supports 14 (Church [0021]). OFFICIAL NOTICE is taken that it is known in the art for shelf brackets, such as Church’s brackets 18, to be of a size that the coupling members 70 define a height of 3.5 inches or less.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the brackets 18 such that the height defined by coupling members 70 is 3.5 inches or less, in order to mount to vertical supports with apertures matching such spacing/size.
With respect to claim 31: Church does not disclose “an anchor element disposed along at least a portion of a front edge of the horizontal shelf” as claimed.
Church’s shelf 22 has a wall 118 that provides a surface for displaying product information and advertising related to the products on the shelf 22, such as brand names and pricing ([0024] and Figs. 1-2). The wall 118 may be a separate component attached to the shelf front end 106 ([0024]).
Applicant’s Fig. 9B and [0078]-[0085] disclose an anchor element 88 extending along the front edge of horizontal shelf 60.
Applicant’s Figs. 9A and [0078]-[0085] disclose a prior art shelving system 98, which comprises a prior art shelf 102. The prior art shelf 102 includes a front edge 108 that receives a prior art label rail 112, which holds a product label 94. This is Applicant-Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Church’s shelf 22 by replacing Church’s wall 118 with the front edge 108 of the prior art shelf 102 (and attaching the prior art label rail 112 to said front edge 108), as an obvious alternative to the means for displaying product information of the products on the shelf 22.
Such a front edge 108 added to Church’s shelf 22 meets “an anchor element disposed along at least a portion of a front edge of the horizontal shelf” as claimed.
With respect to claim 32: See the annotated image below, from Applicant’s Prior Art Fig. 9A. Church, as modified, meets wherein the anchor element is substantially aligned with a bottom surface of the horizontal shelf (as indicated by the dashed line).
PNG
media_image5.png
288
544
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 33: Church, as modified, meets a rail element (prior art label rail 112) configured to engage the anchor element, wherein the rail element extends along a length of the front edge of the horizontal shelf (similarly to Church Figs. 1-2 showing wall 118 extending along a length of the front edge of shelf 22).
With respect to claim 34: In Schneider Fig. 10, the front edges of the two shelves 300a, 300b are aligned.
Obitts Fig. 18 and [0071] disclose a price channel or price channel support 232 on each deck panel 180a-d. Obitts Fig. 1 shows these channels/supports 232 of the four deck panels 180a-d aligned. The channels/supports 232 are equivalent to the prior art label rail 112 and/or Church’s wall 118.
When Church’s wall 118 is replaced with prior art front edge 108 and prior art label rail 112, and Church’s shelf 22 is attached next to one of Obitts’ half-length shelves, it is obvious to have the prior art label rail 112 aligned with the channel/support 232 on the half-length shelf in order to provide the configuration similar to Schneider Fig. 10. Similarly to Obitts Fig. 1, this places the prices of items on adjacent shelf structures at the same vertical height across the width of the merchandise display.
This meets, as claimed, aligning the rail element (prior art label rail 112) with a front edge of the pre-existing shelf (at channel/support 232 of the half-length shelf).
With respect to claim 35: Church, as modified, meets wherein the rail element comprises a securing feature (lower portion of prior art label rail 112 engaged with prior art front edge 108) disposed in a lower portion thereof (Applicant’s Prior Art Fig. 9A).
With respect to claim 36: Church, as modified, meets wherein the rail element comprises an elongate product barrier (ledge 103) extending from the front edge of the horizontal shelf along a substantially vertical axis (Applicant’s Prior Art Fig. 9A).
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0099961 A1 (Church) in view of US 2020/0187675 A1 (Obitts) and US 2007/0176065 A1 (Schneider) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of US 7,258,317 B1 (Nagel), US 3,561,713 (Berkowitz), and US 5,921,412 (Merl).
With respect to claim 30: Church discloses wherein the substantially planar body (comprised in side wall 58) comprises a bottom edge (Figs. 1-9).
Church does not disclose “having a stabilizing projection extending in a transverse direction with respect thereto, and further comprising positioning the stabilizing projection against the refrigerated display case to stabilize the bracket element” as claimed.
See Nagel Figs. 1-5 and col. 5, lines 5-29. Nagel’s support brackets 15 and 16 have stabilizing tabs 44 thereon, in order to minimize lateral deflection thereof when the shelf structure 23 is not attached thereto. This precludes the need for cross-bracing or the like that extends between and connects the brackets 15 and 16.
See Berkowitz Figs. 1-4 and col. 2, lines 19-28. Berkowitz’s tabs 35 and 36 are shaped (bent) from the metal of bracket 10.
Merl Figs. 1A and 6-7 show a tab 67 extending at the bottom edge of a shelf bracket 14.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add a tab (“a stabilizing projection” as claimed) to the bottom edge of Church’s side wall 58, in order to stabilize the brackets 18 when the shelf 22 is not attached.
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0099961 A1 (Church) in view of US 2020/0187675 A1 (Obitts) and US 2007/0176065 A1 (Schneider) as applied to claim 36 above, and further in view of US 2015/0223601 A1 (Zang).
With respect to claim 37: In Applicant’s Prior Art Fig. 9A, the lowermost edge of the prior art label rail 112 is not substantially aligned with the bottom surface of the horizontal shelf 60. This does not meet “wherein the rail element further comprises a lowermost edge, the lowermost edge being substantially aligned with the bottom surface of the horizontal shelf” as claimed.
See the annotated image below, from Zang Fig. 12. Zang shows a rail element having a lowermost edge substantially aligned with the bottom surface of the corresponding shelf (as indicated by the dashed line).
PNG
media_image6.png
680
938
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The Applicant discloses at [0079] that Applicant’s Fig. 9B shows the lower edge 83 of rail element 80 substantially aligned with a bottom surface 65 of the horizontal shelf 60. The Applicant’s disclosure supports the interpretation above regarding the lowermost edge of Zang’s rail element being “substantially aligned” with the bottom surface of the shelf as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the prior art label rail 112 and/or the shelf such that the lowermost edge of the label rail 112 is substantially aligned with the shelf, because Zang shows that is a known configuration in the art.
Response to Arguments
The specification objection made in the Office action dated 17 December 2025 is maintained, as no amendment to the specification has been made.
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and (b) made in the Office action dated 17 December 2025 are withdrawn, as being overcome by the canceling of the rejected claims.
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 made in the Office action dated 17 December 2025 are withdrawn, as being overcome by the canceling of the rejected claims.
The examiner respectfully disagrees that the new claims 21-37 are patentable in view of the cited references. The new combination of prior art used to reject the new claims renders obvious the claimed invention, for at least the reasons set forth above in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW ROERSMA whose telephone number is (571)270-3185. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00.
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.
/ANDREW ROERSMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights