DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
Applicant’s amendment to the specification, filed March 09, 2026, has been considered by the examiner and effectively obviates the prior drawing objection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed March 09, 2026, with respect to the outstanding 102(a)(1) & 103 rejections have been fully considered, but are not deemed persuasive. Upon review, the examiner is unable to coherently follow applicant’s line of remarks since features upon which applicant attributes to the mapping as relied upon within the prior Office action do not coincide. Case in point: applicant argues that the examiner identifies grooves (14, 15) as receiving the slide member (13), and shelf (12) is pivotally connected to slide member (13); while also arguing that the pivot connection identified by the examiner does not slide within grooves (14, 15). To which the examiner remarks: the Office action clearly maps element (13) as the “shelf”; elements (19) as the sliding pivots (i.e., they are defined as ‘flanged rollers’ and are rotatably attached as a guided member); and element (inner wall portion of (11) which includes (15)) as the opposing rails. As can be seen in figures 3A-3B; the sliding pivots (19) clearly slide within the pair of opposing rails (within (15) of inner wall of (11)) to move the tray (12) forward and back (i.e., the tray (12) is linked to the shelf (13) via (24) for instance). Therefore, in this case, the “pivot connection” is deemed to slide within “groove” (15) in contrast to applicant’s assertion. Again, the limitation that “the tray can tilt forward and back at any point along the length of the pair of opposing rails” in an attempt to obviate the applied prior art is not deemed novel and/or unobvious. While the added limitation is appreciated in an earnest attempt to positively advance the application prosecution; the prior art rejection reflects Kanbe’s teaching of the claimed subject matter. The point being that applicant’s device includes rails fastened to side walls on an incline, with rollers spaced forward of the rails and also fastened to the side walls. The rails allow a tray to slide back and forth while the roller assemblies act as a sort of fulcrum to which the tray can angularly move as it travels along the rails. Similarly, Kanbe teaches this aspect via rails (fastened to side walls) including grooves on an incline, with rollers (also fastened to the side walls) along a front of the grooves, in combination with pins (24) on the movable shelf (13). The grooves within the rails allow the tray to slide back and forth while the rollers in combination with the pins provide angular movement of the tray relative to the rails. Accordingly, the position is maintained that a prima facie case of obviousness has been established since applicants claimed invention only unites old elements with no change in their respective functions. Common sense directs one to look with care at a patent application that claims as innovation the combination of known devices according to their established functions, as such, the examiner has identified reasons that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements in the same way as the claimed new invention does. Consequently, the rejections are deemed adequate to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kanbe et al., Kanbe teaches of a locker (defined as a storage apparatus), comprising: a main storage area defined by a pair of spaced-apart upstanding sidewalls (viewed as the left and right outer sidewalls of (11) – note fig. 2A) and an inherent back wall (known in the art for a vending machine structure); an upper compartment (note figs. 2A & 5 for instance) defined by a shelf (13) extending between the pair of upstanding sidewalls (shown), the upper compartment comprising: a pair of opposing rails (viewed as the left and right inner walls of (11) – note fig. 2A) mounted on an internal surface of the pair of upstanding sidewalls (shown); a tray (12) disposed between the pair of opposing rails, the tray being coupled to the pair of opposing rails using a pair of sliding pivots (left and right (19’s)); and a pair of rollers (viewed as the left and right (16’s)) mounted to the internal surface of the pair of upstanding side walls (fig. 2A), the pair of rollers being configured to support the tray (shown via interlinking with shelf (13) & pins (24) for instance); wherein the pair of sliding pivots are configured to slide within the pair of opposing rails (via (15) within the inner wall (11)) to move the tray forward and back (figs. 3A-3C); wherein the pair of sliding pivots are configured to rotate within the pair of opposing rails to tilt the tray forward and back (they are rotatably attached in order to allow tilting of the tray – figs. 3A-3C); and wherein the tray can tilt forward and back at any point along a length of the pair of opposing rails (the position being taken that Kanbe’s device will perform in a similar manner as applicant’s where the tray moves in both a linear and angular manner simultaneously due to the inclination of the rails / grooves and the rotating pivot aspect via the rollers / combination shelf, pin & roller, as the tray moves back and forth relative to the compartment).
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 2-5 & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanbe et al., in view of Rosseau et al., [US 2005/0204579]. Kanbe teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed locker as outlined {mapped} above; but does not show an equipment rack carried on the tray along with particulars associated with the rack as prescribed by applicant. As to this aspect, Rosseau is cited as an evidence reference for the known use of an equipment rack being used in a confined space {such as a closet} in order to dry out sports equipment. Accordingly, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an equipment rack along the tray of Kanbe’s device in view of Rosseau’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by expanding the utility by which Kanbe’s locker can be utilized since the addition of the equipment rack would allow for the storage of equipment along the topmost shelf / tray arrangement as dependent upon the needs and/or preferences of an end user. Regarding Claim 3, as modified, the equipment rack is an inverted U-shaped equipment rack (note fig. 1 of Rosseau). Regarding Claim 4, as modified, the locker would contain an equipment ventilation system ((80) via Rosseau) operably associated with the equipment rack for providing airflow in and around equipment disposed on the equipment rack. Regarding Claim 5, as modified, the ventilation system comprises at least one fan (described as a fan / blower in Rosseau) to facilitate airflow; but does not show plural fans. As to a plurality of fans being employed, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an additional fan (such as to increase air flow potential without having to install a larger fan unit), with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.; furthermore, the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Regarding Claim 11, as modified, the equipment rack comprises: a pair of upstanding, spaced-apart posts (two central 30b’s – fig. 6 of Rosseau); a cross member extending between the pair of spaced-apart posts (main horizontal member connected to both posts – figs. 6-7); and a vertical projection (50) extending outwardly from the cross-member to receive at least one piece of equipment.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanbe in view of Regan [US 2008/0252189]. Kanbe teaches of a locker (defined as a storage apparatus), comprising: a main storage area defined by a pair of spaced-apart upstanding sidewalls (viewed as the left and right outer sidewalls of (11) – note fig. 2A) and an inherent back wall (known in the art for a vending machine structure); an upper compartment (note figs. 2A & 5 for instance) defined by a shelf (13) extending between the pair of upstanding sidewalls (shown), the upper compartment comprising: a pair of opposing rails (viewed as the left and right inner walls of (11) – note fig. 2A) mounted on an internal surface of the pair of upstanding sidewalls (shown); a tray (12) disposed between the pair of opposing rails, the tray being coupled to the pair of opposing rails using a pair of sliding pivots (left and right (19’s)); and a pair of rollers (viewed as the left and right (16’s)) mounted to the internal surface of the pair of upstanding side walls (fig. 2A), the pair of rollers being configured to support the tray (shown via interlinking with shelf (13) & pins (24) for instance); wherein the pair of sliding pivots are configured to slide within the pair of opposing rails (via (15) within the inner wall (11)) to move the tray forward and back (figs. 3A-3C); wherein the pair of sliding pivots are configured to rotate within the pair of opposing rails to tilt the tray forward and back (they are rotatably attached in order to allow tilting of the tray – figs. 3A-3C); and wherein the tray can tilt forward and back at any point along a length of the pair of opposing rails (the position being taken that Kanbe’s device will perform in a similar manner as applicant’s where the tray moves in both a linear and angular manner simultaneously due to the inclination of the rails / grooves and the rotating pivot aspect via the rollers / combination shelf, pin & roller, as the tray moves back and forth relative to the compartment); but Kanbe does not show at least one ventilation grill for receiving airflow. As to the ventilation grill aspect, Regan is cited as an evidence reference for the known incorporation of a ventilation grill, i.e., a collection of apertures within a panel, such as the aeration holes (42) within a back wall (22) of an enclosure (20) for storing items in an analogous art. As such, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kanbe so as to include some aeration holes within the rear wall of the storage apparatus (similar to applicant’s “ventilation grill” structure) in view of Regan’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing a means to promote air flow circulation within the storage area as dependent upon the needs and/or preferences of an end user.
Claims 7-10 & 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanbe et al., in view of Regan and further in view of Rosseau et al., [US 2005/0204579]. The prior art teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed locker as outlined {mapped} above; but does not show an equipment rack carried on the tray along with particulars associated with the rack as prescribed by applicant. As to this aspect, Rosseau is cited as an evidence reference for the known use of an equipment rack being used in a confined space {such as a closet} in order to dry out sports equipment. Accordingly, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an equipment rack along the tray of Kanbe’s device in view of Rosseau’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by expanding the utility by which Kanbe’s locker can be utilized since the addition of the equipment rack would allow for the storage of equipment along the topmost shelf / tray arrangement as dependent upon the needs and/or preferences of an end user. As modified, the equipment rack (main inverted U-shaped portion – fig. 1 of Rosseau) would extend outwardly from a top surface of the tray (when placed upon the tray); at least one helmet stand (top vertical tubular member above the U-shaped portion) would extend outwardly from the top surface of the tray (when situation upon the tray); and at least one protrusion (viewed as (25) for instance) would extend outwardly from a side of the tray. Regarding Claim 8, as modified, an equipment ventilation system (80) is operably associated with the equipment rack for providing airflow in and around equipment disposed on the equipment rack. Regarding Claim 9, as modified, an equipment ventilation system (80) is operably associated with the helmet stand for providing airflow in and around equipment disposed on the equipment rack. Regarding Claim 10, as modified, an equipment ventilation system (80) is operably associated with the at least one protrusion for providing airflow in and around equipment disposed on the equipment rack. Regarding Claim 12, as modified, the equipment rack comprises: a pair of upstanding, spaced-apart posts (two central 30b’s – fig. 6 of Rosseau); a cross member extending between the pair of spaced-apart posts (main horizontal member connected to both posts – figs. 6-7); and a vertical projection (50) extending outwardly from the cross-member to receive at least one piece of equipment. Regarding Claim 13, as modified, the equipment rack comprises: a pair of upstanding, spaced-apart posts (two central 30b’s – fig. 6 of Rosseau); a cross member extending between the pair of spaced-apart posts (main horizontal member connected to both posts – figs. 6-7); a helmet post (vertical narrow member extending up from the middle of the horizontal member – fig. 7) extending outwardly from the cross member and dimensioned to support a helmet above the cross member; and a helmet support (viewed as the cap along the top of the vertical narrow member – fig. 7) disposed on an end of the helmet post, the helmet support member being configured to contact and support an interior of a helmet {such as shown in fig. 6 for instance}.
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 JAMES O HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6866. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 am - 4:30 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, 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. 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.
JOH
March 18, 2026
/James O Hansen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637