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 .
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment / Request for Reconsideration - After Non-Final Rejection filed on July 17, 2025 wherein: claims 1, 7, 13 were amended, and claims 6, 19 canceled. Examiner notes amendments in claims are directed to overcome rejections under 35 USC § 102 / 35 USC § 103. Therefore, claims 1-5, 7-18, 20 are pending and will be examined. Examiners further notes new DRAWINGS to overcome their objections.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ninkaplast (Germany Patent Application Publication DE29912960U1) hereafter NINKAPLAST, in view of Tate (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20130098924A1) hereinafter TATE, in further view of Wojciechowski (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20140263116A1) hereinafter WOJCIECHOWSKI.
Regarding claim 1, NINKAPLAST teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 5 below) a storage system N1-01 for use with cutlery (page 1, Claims, claim 1, “... cutlery insert...”), the storage system N1-01 comprising:
a storage surface 24 comprising a metal sheet (page 4, lines 27-29, “... thin metal plate 60...”) and a scratch-resistant layer (page 4, lines 27-29, “... lacquer...”) disposed over the sheet (page 4, lines 27-29, “... thin metal plate 60...”); and
a plurality of posts 30, 32, each post 30, 32 comprising:
a base portion 62; and
a magnet 78 disposed in the base portion 62,
wherein the magnet 78 is configured to interact with the metal sheet (page 4, lines 27-29, “... thin metal plate 60...”) to selectively couple a respective post 30, 32 with the storage surface 24.
NINKAPLAST fails to teach metal sheet (page 4, lines 27-29, “... thin metal plate 60...”) is a ferromagnetic sheet.
NINKAPLAST fails to teach a movable storage rack, the storage rack comprising:
a body defining one or more slots; and
one or more second magnets disposed in a bottom portion of an outer perimeter of the body,
wherein the one or more second magnets are configured to interact with the metal sheet (page 4, lines 27-29, “... thin metal plate 60...”) to selectively couple the storage rack with the storage surface.
However, TATE teaches (see Fig 1 - Fig 3 below) a portable magnetic dish set T3-01 wherein a mat 10 comprises a plurality of ferromagnetic insert 22, 32, 42 for securements purposes (page 9, para. [0007], lines 7-10, “… retaining force…”).
Furthermore, WOJCIECHOWSKI teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 6 below) a jewelry organizational system W5-01, comprising a movable storage rack 76, the storage rack 76 further comprising:
a body W5-02 defining one slot W5-04; and
one or more second magnets 87 (page 7, para. [0050], lines 1-7, “… e.g., units…”) disposed in a lateral portion W5-04 of an outer perimeter of the body W5-02,
wherein the one or more second magnets 87 (page 7, para. [0050], lines 1-7, “… e.g., units…”) configured to interact with the ferromagnetic sheet 12 to selectively couple the storage rack 76 with the storage surface 10 for customization of use (page 8, para. [0061], lines 1-8, “… may be arranged…”).
WOJCIECHOWSKI fails to teach one or more second magnets 87 (page 7, para. [0050], lines 1-7, “… e.g., units…”) disposed in a bottom portion W5-05.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified metal sheet in the storage system N1-01 of NINKAPLAST with a ferromagnetic insert 22, 32, 42 as taught in the portable magnetic dish set T3-01 of TATE for securement purposes.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified metal sheet in the storage system N1-01 of NINKAPLAST and TATE with movable storage rack 76 as taught in the ferromagnetic sheet 12 of jewelry organizational system W5-01 of WOJCIECHOWSKI for customization of use.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have the modified relative placement of one or more second magnets 87 (page 7, para. [0050], lines 1-7, “… e.g., units…”) in the storage system N1-01 of NINKAPLAST, TATE, and WOJCIECHOWSKI to a bottom portion (i.e., bottom portion W5-05) to meet design requirements since rearrangement of parts is held as an obvious matter of design choice. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
PNG
media_image1.png
947
737
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
351
808
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
514
548
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
499
526
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
488
531
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
797
1019
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
447
814
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
592
989
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
405
1108
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
369
894
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
357
1175
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
352
786
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
834
584
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
259
574
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, NINKAPLAST, TATE, and WOJCIECHOWSKI (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. NINKAPLAST further teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 5 above) storage system N1-01, wherein the storage surface 24 is a drawer bottom 74.
Regarding claim 3, NINKAPLAST, TATE, and WOJCIECHOWSKI (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. NINKAPLAST fails to teach (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 5 above) storage system N1-01, wherein the scratch-resistant layer (page 4, lines 27-29, “... lacquer...”) is one or more of a fabric or a wood veneer.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have formed the scratch-resistant layer (page 4, lines 27-29, “... lacquer...”) in the storage system N1-01 of NINKAPLAST, TATE, and WOJCIECHOWSKI of one or more of a fabric or a wood veneer to meet design requirements. 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.
Regarding claim 4, NINKAPLAST, TATE, and WOJCIECHOWSKI (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. NINKAPLAST further teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 5 above) storage system N1-01, wherein each post 30, 32 comprises an outer sleeve N1-02 comprising plastic (page 2, line 5, “... plastic...”).
Regarding claim 5, NINKAPLAST, TATE, and WOJCIECHOWSKI (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. NINKAPLAST further teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 5 above) storage system N1-01, wherein, for each post 30, 32, a lower surface N3-01 of the magnet 78 is flush with a bottom surface N3-02 of the base portion 62.
Claim(s) 7, 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NINKAPLAST, in view of TATE, in further view of Guzeltepe et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20220287460A1) hereinafter GUZELTEPE, further view of WOJCIECHOWSKI.
Regarding claim 7, NINKAPLAST teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 5 above) a storage system N1-01 comprising:
a metal sheet (page 4, lines 27-29, “... thin metal plate 60...”) configured to be disposed in or on a storage surface 24;
a plurality of posts 30, 32, each post 30, 32 comprising:
a base portion 62; and
a first magnet 78 disposed in the base portion 82, wherein the first magnet 78 is configured to interact with the metal sheet (page 4, lines 27-29, “... thin metal plate 60...”) to selectively couple a respective post 30, 32 with the storage surface 24.
NINKAPLAST fails to teach storage system N1-01 for use in a vehicle.
NINKAPLAST fails to teach metal sheet (page 4, lines 27-29, “... thin metal plate 60...”) is a ferromagnetic sheet.
NINKAPLAST fails to teach posts 30, 32 comprising a longitudinal slot for retaining a storage divider.
NINKAPLAST fails to teach a storage rack, the storage rack comprising:
a body defining one or more slots; and
one or more second magnets disposed in a bottom portion of the body,
wherein the one or more second magnets are configured to interact with the metal sheet (page 4, lines 27-29, “... thin metal plate 60...”) to selectively couple the storage rack with the storage surface.
However, TATE teaches (see Fig 1 - Fig 3 above) a portable magnetic dish set T3-01 wherein a mat 10 comprises a plurality of ferromagnetic insert 22, 32, 42 for securements purposes (page 9, para. [0007], lines 7-10, “… retaining force…”).
Furthermore, GUZELTEPE teaches (see FIG. 2A, FIG. 2B, FIG. 5B, FIG. 8A, FIG. 10A, FIG. 10B below) a magnetic drawer separator 10 comprising a longitudinal slot 25 further comprising a storage divider 11 for customization of use (page 13, para. [0046], lines 1-8, “… define…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified metal sheet in the storage system N1-01 of NINKAPLAST with a ferromagnetic insert 22, 32, 42 as taught in the portable magnetic dish set T3-01 of TATE for securement purposes.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified posts 30, 32 in the storage system N1-01 of NINKAPLAST and TATE with longitudinal slot 25 / storage divider 11 as taught in the magnetic drawer separator 10 of GUZELTEPE for customization of use.
Furthermore, WOJCIECHOWSKI teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 6 above) a jewelry organizational system W5-01, comprising a movable storage rack 76, the storage rack 76 further comprising:
a body W5-02 defining one slot W5-04; and
one or more second magnets 87 (page 7, para. [0050], lines 1-7, “… e.g., units…”) disposed in a lateral portion W5-04 of the body W5-02,
wherein the one or more second magnets 87 (page 7, para. [0050], lines 1-7, “… e.g., units…”) configured to interact with the ferromagnetic sheet 12 to selectively couple the storage rack 76 with the storage surface 10 for customization of use (page 8, para. [0061], lines 1-8, “… may be arranged…”).
WOJCIECHOWSKI fails to teach one or more second magnets 87 (page 7, para. [0050], lines 1-7, “… e.g., units…”) disposed in a bottom portion W5-05.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified metal sheet in the storage system N1-01 of NINKAPLAST, TATE, and GUZELTEPE with movable storage rack 76 as taught in the ferromagnetic sheet 12 of jewelry organizational system W5-01 of WOJCIECHOWSKI for customization of use.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have the modified relative placement of one or more second magnets 87 (page 7, para. [0050], lines 1-7, “… e.g., units…”) in the storage system N1-01 of NINKAPLAST, TATE, GUZELTEPE and WOJCIECHOWSKI to a bottom portion (i.e., bottom portion W5-05) to meet design requirements since rearrangement of parts is held as an obvious matter of design choice. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Henceforth, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified storage system N1-01 of NINKAPLAST, TATE, GUZELTEPE and WOJCIECHOWSKI for use in a vehicle since it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Ex parte Masham , 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
PNG
media_image15.png
580
795
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
582
785
media_image16.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image17.png
622
865
media_image17.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image18.png
449
540
media_image18.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image19.png
519
853
media_image19.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image20.png
607
639
media_image20.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, NINKAPLAST, TATE, GUZELTEPE and WOJCIECHOWSKI (as applied to claim 7 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. NINKAPLAST further teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 5 above) storage system N1-01, wherein the base portion 82 of each post 30, 32 has a cylindrical shape.
Regarding claim 10, NINKAPLAST, TATE, GUZELTEPE and WOJCIECHOWSKI (as applied to claim 7 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. NINKAPLAST further teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 5 above) storage system N1-01, wherein each post 30, 32 comprises an outer sleeve N1-01 comprising plastic (page 2, line 5, “... plastic...”).
Regarding claim 11, NINKAPLAST, TATE, GUZELTEPE and WOJCIECHOWSKI (as applied to claim 7 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. NINKAPLAST further teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 5 above) storage system N1-01, wherein, for each post 30, 32, a lower surface N3-01 of the first magnet 78 is flush with a bottom surface N3-02 of the base portion 82.
Regarding claim 12, NINKAPLAST, TATE, GUZELTEPE and WOJCIECHOWSKI (as applied to claim 7 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. NINKAPLAST further teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 5 above) storage system N1-01, wherein the storage surface 24 comprises a layer (page 4, lines 27-29, “... lacquer...”) disposed over the metal sheet so as to conceal the metal sheet.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NINKAPLAST, in view of TATE, in further view of GUZELTEPE, further view of WOJCIECHOWSKI, in further view of Curtis (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20040222338A1) hereinafter CURTIS.
Regarding claim 8, NINKAPLAST, TATE, GUZELTEPE and WOJCIECHOWSKI (as applied to claim 7 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. NINKAPLAST fails to teach (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 5 above) storage system N1-01, wherein each post 30, 32 further comprises a generally cylindrical body N2-01 extending from the base portion 62, wherein the base portion 62 has a larger diameter than the body N2-01.
However, CURTIS teaches (see Fig. 1, Fig. 2A, Fig. 2B below) a magnetic removable assembly C1-01 (page 1, ABSTRACT, line 4, “... magnetic assembly...”), wherein post 44 further comprises a generally cylindrical body C1-02 extending from the base portion 8, wherein the base portion 8 has a larger diameter C1-03 than the body C1-02 to meet design requirements.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified post 30, 32 / base portion 62 in the storage system N1-01 of NINKAPLAST, TATE, GUZELTEPE and WOJCIECHOWSKI with post 44 / base portion 8 as taught in the magnetic removable assembly C1-01 of CURTIS to meet design requirements.
PNG
media_image21.png
887
239
media_image21.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image22.png
816
490
media_image22.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 13-16, 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NINKAPLAST, in view of Guzeltepe et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20220287460A1) hereinafter GUZELTEPE.
Regarding claim 13, NINKAPLAST teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 5 above) a post 30, 32 for use in a storage system N1-01 for cutlery (page 1, Claims, claim 1, “... cutlery insert...”), the post 30, 32 comprising:
a generally cylindrical body N2-01 comprising plastic (page 2, line 5, “... plastic...”);
a base portion 82 disposed at an end of the body N2-01, wherein the base portion 82 comprises a cylindrical shape; and a magnet 78 disposed in the base portion 82.
NINKAPLAST fails to teach posts 30, 32 comprising a longitudinal slot for retaining a storage divider.
However, GUZELTEPE teaches (see FIG. 2A, FIG. 2B, FIG. 5B, FIG. 8A, FIG. 10A, FIG. 10B above) a magnetic drawer separator 10 comprising a longitudinal slot 25 further comprising a storage divider 11 for customization of use (page 13, para. [0046], lines 1-8, “… define…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified posts 30, 32 in the storage system N1-01 of NINKAPLAST with longitudinal slot 25 / storage divider 11 as taught in the magnetic drawer separator 10 of GUZELTEPE for customization of use.
Regarding claim 14, NINKAPLAST and GUZELTEPE (as applied to claim 13 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. NINKAPLAST further teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 5 above) post 30, 32 wherein the base portion 82 comprises:
a first disk portion having a first diameter; and
a second disk portion, under the first disk portion, having a second diameter;
wherein the second diameter is larger than the first diameter.
Regarding claim 15, NINKAPLAST and GUZELTEPE (as applied to claim 14 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. NINKAPLAST further teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 5 above) post 30, 32 wherein the magnet 78 is flush with a bottom surface of the second disk portion.
Regarding claim 16, NINKAPLAST and GUZELTEPE (as applied to claim 14 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. NINKAPLAST further teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 5 above) post 30, 32, wherein the magnet 78 is disposed in both the first disk portion and the second disk portion.
Regarding claim 18, NINKAPLAST and GUZELTEPE (as applied to claim 14 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. NINKAPLAST further teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 5 above) post 30, 32, wherein a length of the body N2-01 is greater than a diameter of the body N2-01.
Regarding claim 20, NINKAPLAST and GUZELTEPE (as applied to claim 14 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. NINKAPLAST fails to teach (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 5 above) post 30, 32, further comprising a plurality of wings extending radially outward from the body N2-01.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified post 30, 32 of NINKAPLAST and GUZELTEPE to comprise a plurality of wings extending radially outward from the body N2-01 and further diversify its use since changes in shape are regarded as a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NINKAPLAST, in view of GUZELTEPE, in further view of CURTIS.
Regarding claim 17, NINKAPLAST and GUZELTEPE (as applied to claim 14 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. NINKAPLAST fails to teach (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 5 above) post 30, 32, wherein the magnet 78 defines a through-bore, wherein the post 30, 32 further comprises a fastener disposed in the through-bore to couple the magnet 78 to the body N2-01.
However, CURTIS teaches (see Fig. 1, Fig. 2A, Fig. 2B above) post 44, wherein the magnet 22 defines a through-bore, wherein the post 44 further comprises a fastener 28 disposed in the through-bore to couple the magnet 22 to the body C1-02 for purposes of assembly.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified post 30, 32 of NINKAPLAST and GUZELTEPE with post 44 of CURTIS for purposes of assembly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's new DRAWINGS towards overcoming their objections in the reply filed July 17, 2025 are found persuasive.
Applicant's arguments regarding rejections under 35 USC § 102 / 35 USC § 103 of claims 1-5, 7-18, 20 (moot for claims 6, 19 upon their cancelation) in aforementioned reply have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejections does not rely on exactly all references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the Applicant’s arguments.
With respect to the art rejections, in accordance with MPEP 2111.01, during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 70 USPQ2D 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Chen (China Patent CN214905164U): Teaches a “drawer” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Winnard et al. (U. S. Patent US10675750B1): Teaches a “holder” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
King et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20190283679A1): Teaches a “retention device” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Ki Woo-Seung. (South Korea Patent Application Publication KR20100009464U ): Teaches a “holding plate rack” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Cook et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20170071383A1): Teaches a “storage” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCOS JAVIER RODRIGUEZ MOLINA whose telephone number is (571) 272-8947. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM.
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, ANTHONY D. STASHICK can be reached on (571) 272-4561. 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.
/M.J.R.M./
/Anthony D Stashick/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights