DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: each instance of “guide track” should read --track--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In regards to claim 12, it is unclear if “a handle” in line 2 is the same or different than the handle recited in lines 6-7 of claim 10. It appears Applicant should recite --connecting the handle to the clamp-- in line 2 of claim 12. Appropriate explanation or 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.
Claims 10, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mulloy (US Pat. No. 5,325,792) in view of Marschke (US Pat. No. 2,726,318).
In regards to claim 10, Mulloy teaches a method, comprising: forming a chassis (12) of two ends and two sides (14, 16); connecting a fixed end (24) to one of the ends of the chassis (i.e.; each 24 can be fixed in place via lock bar 70 at one of the end); connecting a track (32/34/56) to the chassis; and connecting an adjustable end to the track (i.e.; one of 24 can be adjusted relative to the other); and providing a clamp (70, 74) biased to engage the track (via spring 92; Col 7, Lines 7-21), the clamp includes a pressable handle (72) to disengage the clamp from engagement with the track.
Mulloy does not teach connecting a shelf to one of the sides, the shelf protrudes perpendicular to the one of the sides and extends along the chassis between the fixed and adjustable ends.
Marschke teaches a system comprising a chassis (45) of two ends and two sides; a track (i.e.; apertures 27 and 29 to slide rods 43 and 44), two ends (41 and 42) connected to the track, and a shelf (47) connected to one of the sides and protruding perpendicularly to the one of the sides, and extends along the chassis between the two ends.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Mulloy’s method to connect a shelf to one of the sides, the shelf protrudes perpendicular to the one of the sides and extends along the chassis between the fixed and adjustable ends. The motivation would be for the purpose of including a fluorescent light when necessary, as taught by Marschke (Col 3, Lines 4-13), thereby providing illumination in a dark room.
In regards to claim 12, modified Mulloy teaches connecting a handle (Mulloy: 72) to the clamp, the handle when pressed overcomes the bias and disengages the clamp from the track.
In regards to claim 14, modified Mulloy teaches providing a spring (Mulloy: 92) connected to the clamp for bias to engage the track.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5, 7 and 8 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: : Mulloy uses a button/handle (72) to disengage the clamp. However, a lever is not connected to the clamp because the bar (70) is not connected to a pivot as required by the term lever. Modifying Mulloy would involve significant reconstruction, and would require impermissible hindsight in view of Applicant’s disclosure.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 10, Mulloy teaches a pressable handle (i.e.; pressable button 72 is in the shape of a rounded handle).
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 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 STANTON L KRYCINSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5381. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00AM-5:00PM ET.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571)272-8227. 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.
/Stanton L Krycinski/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631