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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species A in the reply filed on 27 October 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Currently no claims are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 43 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, line 2, it appears “a first axis” should read --the first axis--
Claim 43, line 16, “may” should read --can-- to recite a positive capability, and not an ambiguous possibility
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 16 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 16, line 4 recites “a fourth distance”. However, there is no recited “third distance”. Therefore, it is unclear how may distances are part of the claimed invention. Appropriate 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.
Claim 32, 33, 35 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagel (US Pat. No. 10,034,557 B1) in view of Johnson (US Pat. No. 5,855,283).
In regards to claim 32, Nagel teaches a retail merchandise tray, comprising: a frame (110) extending between a front and a rear and providing a product support surface, the frame including first and second upstanding wall portions (102) being laterally spaced apart from one another along a second axis being generally perpendicular to the first axis; a front stop (104) mounted to the first and second upstanding wall portions, the front stop including: an upright member (162); a first mounting portion securing the front stop to the first upstanding wall portion, the first mounting portion including: a first rearward extending wall portion (A; see annotation above) extending in a cantilevered orientation relative to the upright member; a first mounting tab (168, Fig. 5) extending laterally from the first rearward extending wall portion, the first mounting tab extending generally parallel to the second axis into a first mounting tab receiving recess (170) in the first upstanding wall portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
258
320
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nagel does not teach the first rearward extending wall portion operably resiliently attaching the first mounting tab to the upright member. Johnson teaches a rearward extending wall portion (174, Fig. 11) operably resiliently attaching a mounting tab (180) to an upright member (170) of a front stop (110)(Col 4, Lines 29-38).
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 Nagel’s tray such that the first rearward extending wall portion operably resiliently attaches the first mounting tab to the upright member. The motivation would be for the purpose of facilitating disengagement and interengagement of the component of the tray as taught by Johnson (Col 5, Lines 26-33).
In regards to claim 33, modified Nagel teaches the front stop (Nagel: 110) further includes: a second mounting portion securing the front stop to the second upstanding wall portion (Nagel: 102), the second mounting portion including: a second rearward extending wall portion extending in a cantilevered orientation relative to the upright member; a second mounting tab (Nagel: 168) extending laterally from the second rearward extending wall portion, the second mounting tab extending generally parallel to the second axis into a second mounting tab receiving recess (Nagel: 170) in the second upstanding wall portion, the second rearward extending wall portion operably resiliently attaching the second mounting tab to the upright member (as modified by Johnson).
In regards to claim 35, modified Nagel teaches the first mounting portion includes a third rearward extending wall portion including a first mounting protrusion (Nagel: 164), the first mounting protrusion engaging the first upstanding wall portion (Nagel: 102) and preventing angular rotation of the front stop (Nagel: 110) about the first mounting tab about an axis parallel to the second axis.
PNG
media_image2.png
388
300
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 39, modified Nagel teaches the first and third rearward extending wall portions have a gap (G; see annotation above) formed therebetween, the gap having a gap bottom positioned along the first axis between the upright member (Nagel: 162) and the first mounting tab (Nagel: 168) and positioned along the first axis between the upright member and the first mounting protrusion (Nagel: 164) towards the upright member.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-15 and 17-21 are allowed. Claim 16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Claims 43 and 45 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Nagel (US Pat. No. 10,034,557 B1) and Johnson (US Pat. No. 5,855,283) are considered the closest prior art of record as discussed above. The prior art of record does not anticipate or make obvious a retail merchandise tray and a front stop mountable to a frame of a retail merchandise tray having the combination or structural and functional limitations of Applicant’s claimed invention. Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record does not teach modifying Nagel such that the first mounting tab is resiliently attached to the upright member such that a lesser amount of force is required to laterally displace the first mounting tab parallel to the second axis relative to the upright member than is required to laterally displace the first mounting protrusion generally parallel to the second axis relative to the upright member. Regarding claim 21, the prior art of record does not teach modifying Nagel suck that the first mounting tab is resiliently attached to the upright member such that a lesser amount of force is required to laterally displace the first mounting tab parallel to the first axis relative to the upright member than is required to laterally displace the first mounting protrusion generally parallel to the first axis relative to the upright member.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the PTO-892 for additional prior art related to the Applicant’s disclosed invention.
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