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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/21/2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “6” has been used to designate both “filling component module” 6 (Fig. 1-4; an external housing module) and “filling component module” 6 (Fig. 5, internal to side frames 3, composed of filling components 61, 62). Further, reference characters 63 “third filling component” and 6 “filling component module” have both been used for the same element in Fig. 8 and Fig. 2.
PNG
media_image1.png
1242
1620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1402
2104
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
1216
1464
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification does not adequately describe the differences/relationships between filling component module 6 and the first, second, and third filling components 61, 62, 63. Is filling component module 6 an internal volume filling structure comprised of the combination of first filling component 61 + second filling component 62 (see par. 0033 of publication, Fig. 5), or comprised of all filling components 61+ 62 + 63, or are there alternative embodiments of filling component module 6 such as embodiment one (corresponding to 61 + 62) and embodiment two (corresponding to 63)? Is third filling component 63 an internal volume filling component (similar to 61 and 62 in Fig. 5) or is 63 an uncovered module (as in Fig. 8).
Appropriate correction is required. No new matter must be added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2 and 5-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 1 and 12 each recite:
“a filling component module disposed on the exterior of the shelf casing and adjacent to at least one of the plurality of side walls and comprising a filling component” followed by “and the filling component is disposed within the accommodation space of the first side frame module”, which is not enabled because it is unclear how the filling component module comprises the filling component and also the filling component is disposed within the first side frame module.
See “Specification above”. The specification does not adequately identify the differences/relationships between the “filling component module”, the “first filling component”, the “second filling component”, and the “third filling component”, such that one of ordinary skill in the art could identify which claim limitations correspond to which element(s) of the disclosure, and thereby make and/or use the invention.
The specification does not provide an adequate support for the aforementioned limitations. After considering all of the Wands factors (and specifically, that there is no adequate direction provided by the inventor/applicant, no existence of the working examples (as per the current record), and that there is low predictability of the claimed functions in the relevant arts), the Office has concluded that the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the claimed invention based on the content of the instant disclosure will be high and undue to a person of the ordinary skill, and therefore, such a person will not be able to make and use the claimed invention without resorting to undue experimentation. See In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Brown, 477 F.2d 946, 177 USPQ 691 (CCPA 1973), and In re Ghiron, 442 F.2d 985, 169 USPQ 723 (CCPA 1971)”.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 5-15 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.
Claims 1 and 12 each recite:
“a filling component module disposed on the exterior of the shelf casing and adjacent to at least one of the plurality of side walls and comprising a filling component” followed by “and the filling component is disposed within the accommodation space of the first side frame module”, which renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear how the filling component module comprises the filling component and also the filling component is disposed within the first side frame module. It is unclear whether “a filling component” and “the filling component” refer to the same embodiment of filling component, a combination of filling component parts constituting a filling component, multiple different filling components or embodiments, etc. Further, it is unclear what constitutes the filling component module, e.g., a modular external unit as 6 in Fig. 1 of the Drawings, or a combination of filling components 61, 62 disposed internally of the side frame module 3 as in Fig. 5.
Claims 5 and 6 depend from canceled claims 4 and 3 respectively, which renders the claims indefinite since it is unclear what limitations are actually required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB R CRUM whose telephone number is (571)270-7665. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached at (571) 270-1985. 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.
/JACOB R CRUM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights