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 .
Specification
It is noted the Applicant appears to have made an effort to amend the specification in the Remarks (filed 2/2/2026) in response to the specification objections in the Non-Final Rejection (mailed 10/1/2025). However, amendments to the specification are required to be on a separate sheet (similar to the amended claims) and not in the Remarks. As such, the specification objections listed below remain.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 14, paragraph 49, “2x2 pattern morning” should be changed to --2x2 pattern forming--.
Page 15, paragraph 57, “the securing mechanisms 106” should be changed to -- the securing mechanisms 206--.
Page 18, paragraph 66, “second buckle end 106” has been changed to --second buckle end 406--.
Page 19, paragraph 71, “a consistency the in the position” should be changed to --a consistency in the position--.
Page 27, paragraph 96, “outer horizontal members 1306” should be changed to --additional outer horizontal members 1306-- for consistency purposes.
Page 27, paragraph 96, “outer horizontal member 1306” should be changed to --additional outer horizontal member 1306-- for consistency purposes.
Page 27, paragraph 97 (first sentence), “outer horizontal member 1306” should be changed to --additional outer horizontal member 1306-- for consistency purposes.
Page 30, paragraph 103, “outer horizontal member 1306” should be changed to --additional outer horizontal member 1306-- for consistency purposes.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8-11, 13-18 and 21-23 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,878,224 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference patent includes all the limitations claimed by the present invention. Regarding claims 1, 15 and 16, all the attachment means listed between the inner and outer horizontal members are old and well-known and would have been an obvious choice to releasably couple the inner horizontal member to the outer horizontal member. Regarding claim 8, it would have been obvious to use an elevation coupler comprising the three segments as recited given the structure and angles between the elements disclosed in the reference patent and such couplers are well-known in the art. Regarding claim 10, all the securing members are old and well-known and would have been an obvious choice to releasably secure the elevation coupler to the vertical support and/or either outer horizontal member. Regarding claim 14, any of the recited materials are well-known materials commonly used in the art. Regarding claim 18, having hollow portions in the elements connected together by an elastic element is old and well-known in the art. Regarding claims 9, 11, 13 and 23, it would have been obvious to locate the elevation coupler proximate a corner of the grid given the structure and angles between the elements disclosed in the reference patent and it would have been obvious to include as many outer horizontal members and inner horizontal members necessary to comprise a grid sized and structured to suit the user’s needs.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 and 20 are allowed.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8-11, 13-18 and 21-23 would be allowable upon filing of a proper terminal disclaimer to overcome the double rejection set forth in this Office action.
Claim 7 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable upon filing of a proper terminal disclaimer to overcome the double patent rejection of claim 1 from which it depends.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 16 (Remarks), filed 2/2/2026, with respect to claims 1, 15 and 16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejections of claims 1, 3, 4, 7-11, 13-18 and 21-23 has been withdrawn.
It is noted that Applicant states in the Remarks (page 14) a Terminal Disclaimer was included with the response filed 2/2/2026. However, it is noted a terminal disclaimer was not received. As such, the double patenting rejection of the applicable claims still stands.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DANIELLE JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2268. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 11AM-7PM 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, David Dunn can be reached at (571)272-6670. 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.
/DNJ/ Examiner, Art Unit 3636
/DAVID R DUNN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3636