This is a Non-Final office action for serial number 18533789.
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
No claims withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species II-IV, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 23, 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “108n” has been used to designate both holes and screws (Figure 11). 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.
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
The applicant has elected species I. Claim 1 recites “a first engaging structure” and “a second engaging structure”. The examiner can not clearly determine what structure the claim is referring to when reciting “first engaging structure” and “second engaging structure” since the specification only discloses that the engaging structure as teeth 114b, teeth 214, or teeth 318 which are not found on the major body of the support bracket (Figure 11, element 108) which has been elected therefore being confusing and indefinite. Claim 2 further recites, “the first engaging structure and the second engaging structure are configured to respectively connect to a front set of teeth and a back set of teeth positioned along a longitudinal length of a vertical upright of a consumer product display” therefore making it difficult to determine the structure as claimed since the specification only discloses the first and second engaging structures as teeth 114b, teeth 214 or teeth 318 which do not appear to be capable of connecting to the front set of teeth and back set of teeth along a vertical upright. The examiner can not determine how the teeth 114b, 214, or 318 disclosed as the engaging structures within the specification can also be the first and second engaging structures as claimed since the first and second engaging structures as claimed within claim 2 are configured to respectively connect to a front set of teeth and a back set of teeth positioned along a longitudinal length of a vertical upright of a consumer product display. The claim terminology should match the terminology used within the specification therefore eliminating indefiniteness or confusion.
The claims have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 for the above reasons. Please note that the Examiner may not have pointed out each and every example of indefiniteness. The applicant is required to review all the claim language to make sure the claimed invention is clear and definite.
All words in a claim must be considered in determining the patentability of theclaim against the prior art. If no reasonably definite meaning can be ascribed to certainterms in the claim, the subject matter does not become obvious, the claim becomesindefinite. In re Wilson, 424F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970). The examiner's analysis ofthe claims, in particular claim language within the claims as rejected under 35 USC 112 above, indicates that considerable speculation as to the meaning of the terms employed and assumptions as to the scope of the claims needs to be made, as the examiner does not understand what is exactly being claimed by the applicant. Any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 should not be based on such speculations and assumptions. In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859,862 (CCPA 1962); Ex parte Head, 214 USPQ 551 (Bd.App. 1981).
Accordingly, the applicant should not assume that any claims not rejected using prior art is considered allowable since the examiner can not clearly determine the limitations of the claim due to indefiniteness. The applicant should be aware that once the claims have been corrected to remove the problems concerning indefiniteness, prior art may be used to reject the claims and the next action made final or if the application is in a final status the amendment after final may not be entered as requiring further search and/or consideration.
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, 2, 8, 9, 11, and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11178964. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the application 18533789 and US Patent 11178964 disclose claims:
1. A support bracket, comprising: a major body with a first surface; a first engaging structure on a first end of the major body; a second engaging structure near a second end of the major body; and at least one center bracket connected to the major body, the at least one center bracket being slideable along the first surface of the major body between the first engaging structure and the second engaging structure.
2. The support bracket of claim 1, wherein the first engaging structure and the second engaging structure are configured to respectively connect to a front set of teeth and a back set of teeth positioned along a longitudinal length of a vertical upright of a consumer product display.
8. The support bracket of claim 1, wherein the second engaging structure is configured to slide in unison with the at least one center bracket.
9. The support bracket of claim 8, further comprising: a floating plate positioned within a recessed area defined by a second surface of the major body, the floating plate including the second engaging structure and the at least one center bracket projecting from an inner surface of the floating plate.
11. The support bracket of claim 1, further comprising: a floating plate positioned within a recessed area defined by a second surface of the major body, the floating plate including the second engaging structure and the at least one center bracket projecting from a first inner surface of the floating plate.
12. The support bracket of claim 11, further comprising: a locking plate holding the floating plate within the recessed area, the locking plate contacting an outer surface of the floating plate.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 11178964 in view of 10306981.
11178964 discloses all of the limitations of the claimed invention except for wherein the at least one center bracket is configured to engage and grip an inner surface of a track running along a center-position of the vertical upright of a consumer product display.
10306981 teaches it known to have claim 3, wherein the at least one center bracket is configured to engage and grip an inner surface of a track running along a center-position of the vertical upright and 5. wherein the at least one center bracket is configured to engage and grip an inner surface of a track running along a center-position of a vertical upright of a consumer product display.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success to have modified 11178964 to have at least one center bracket is configured to engage and grip an inner surface of a track running along a center-position of the vertical upright of a consumer product display as taught by 10306981 for the purpose of providing a stable means to attach the device securely to the support.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected, as best understood, under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Brown 5538213. The applicant is reminded that the first second of teeth, a back set of teeth, vertical upright are not positively claimed therefore the prior art only need to be capable of performing the functions related to the first second of teeth, a back set of teeth, and vertical upright.
Brown discloses claims:
1. A support bracket, comprising: a major body with a first surface; a first engaging structure on a first end of the major body; a second engaging structure near a second end of the major body; and at least one center bracket connected to the major body, the at least one center bracket being slideable along the first surface of the major body between the first engaging structure and the second engaging structure.
2. The support bracket of claim 1, wherein the first engaging structure and the second engaging structure are configured to respectively connect to a front set of teeth and a back set of teeth positioned along a longitudinal length of a vertical upright of a consumer product display (capable of attaching to front or back teeth of 11, as best understood)
3. The support bracket of claim 2, wherein the at least one center bracket is configured to engage and grip an inner surface (13) of a track (channel section) of running along a center-position of the vertical upright.
4. The support bracket of claim 3, wherein the first engaging structure, the second engaging structure and the at least one center bracket each extend from a first side of the support bracket, the first surface being on the first side.
5. The support bracket of claim 1, wherein the at least one center bracket is configured to engage and grip an inner surface of a track running along a center-position of a vertical upright of a consumer product display.
6. The support bracket of claim 1, wherein the first engaging structure, the second engaging structure and the at least one center bracket extends from a first side of the support bracket, the first surface being on the first side.
7. The support bracket of claim 1, wherein the second engaging structure (lower 15) is connected in a fixed position to the at least one center bracket (23).
[AltContent: textbox (First side of support bracket)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First engaging structure)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (track)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Front set of teeth
Back set of teeth)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Center bracket 23)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second end)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First end)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second engaging structure )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Support bracket 17 major body first surface)]
PNG
media_image1.png
846
378
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First side of support bracket)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (track)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Vertical upright 11 with front set of teeth and back set of teeth)]
PNG
media_image2.png
548
832
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art discloses conventional support brackets.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY T WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-6826. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 9:00am-5:30pm flexible schedule.
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.
/KIMBERLY T WOOD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights