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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the reply filed on 11/21/2025, wherein claims 1-2, 13-14 were amended, claims 3, 5, 15 are cancelled, claim 21 is new. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-14, 16-21 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the a recessed area (claim 2 and 14) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 1-2, 4, 6-12, 14 and 21 are 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 term “a recessed area” and “one or more recessed areas” in claims 2, 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a recessed area” and “one or more recessed areas” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The drawings fail to show a configuration with "a plurality of recessed areas" or "a recessed area" on the retainer. It is unclear how a plurality of recessed areas would be incorporated in the retainer and still perform the claimed output (to receive corresponding dimensioned portions of a handle). Further a handle necessitating a plurality of recesses on a retainer is not shown in the drawings. The specification fails to further elaborate upon the structure.
The term “inwardly curved receptacle” in claim 1 and 6-9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “inwardly curved receptacle” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification fails to directly state which feature is considered an “inwardly curved receptacle”. What is the inwardly curved receptacle? Is this referring to item 125? If so, it does not appear that the item “wholly” curves inward, it can be understood that a portion can be considered as such. Features such as the teeth (910) protrude outward. More importantly, if the inwardly curved receptacle is feature 125, then wouldn’t claim 6 “one or more first connectors” or claim 8 first support be considered part of the “inwardly curved receptacle”. However as claimed these features are all different from one another and part of the support. For the purposes of examination, it is assumed that the inwardly curved receptacle is other nomenclature or at least a portion of the features identified in claims 6-9. Claims 2, 4, 6-12, and 21 directly or indirectly depend from claim 1 and are also rejected.
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(s) 1-2, 4, 6-7, 10-12, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Hermey (US 20140061415 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Hermey discloses a wall mount for a tool box, the wall mount comprising: a base (fig 13), the base being at least substantially planar and defining a surface area dimensioned to receive a tool box (intended function); at least one support (17 and/or 2) disposed at a lower portion of the base, the at least one support constructed to engage and at least partially support a tool box received by the wall mount (intended function), the at least one support comprising an inwardly curved receptacle to receive the toolbox (drawings show a fillet edge for 17 where arrow 2 is in figure 3); and a receiver (8) comprising a receiving portion (horizontal portion below 22.1) and a retainer, the receiving portion extending outwardly and substantially perpendicularly from an upper portion of the base, the retainer (above 22.1) extending upwardly and substantially perpendicularly from a distal portion of the receiving portion, the receiving portion comprising sides and a top surface (inherent feature one side visible in figure 11 top surface visible in cross section of figure 12) that is coupled to and between the sides, the receiving portion of the receiver being constructed (intended function) to receive a handle of a tool box received by the wall mount.
PNG
media_image1.png
468
338
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Hermey discloses the wall mount according to claim 1, wherein the retainer comprises a recessed area (groove of 8) dimensioned to receive at least a portion of the handle of the tool box received by the wall mount to inhibit translation of the handle along the receiver (intended function, not positively reciting a toolbox).
With respect to claim 4, Hermey discloses the wall mount according to claim 1, wherein the retainer comprises a single upwardly extending section or member.
With respect to claim 6, Hermey discloses the wall mount according to claim 1, wherein the at least one support comprises one or more first connectors comprising one or more male features and/or one or more female features (slot of 17) to matingly engage corresponding one or more second connectors of a tool box received by the wall mount (intended function, not positively reciting a toolbox).
With respect to claim 7, Hermey discloses the wall mount according to claim 6, wherein the one or more first connectors comprise recessed areas, grooves (groove of 17) or teeth.
With respect to claim 10, Hermey discloses the wall mount according to claim 1, wherein the at least one support (17 and/or 2) comprises a single support extending along substantially an entire width of the base of the wall mount. (A width as defined by a width measured from recessed portions between 26 of figure 11)
With respect to claim 11, Hermey discloses the wall mount according to claim 1, wherein the at least one support (17 and/or 2) comprises a single support extending along only a portion of a width of the base of the wall mount. (A width as defined by a width measured from protruding portions of 26 of figure 11)
With respect to claim 12, Hermey discloses the wall mount according to claim 1, wherein the wall mount is a unitary structure formed from a polymer. (page 1 [0009])
With respect to claim 21, Hermey discloses the wall mount according to claim 1, wherein the inwardly curved receptacle comprises teeth.
Examiner Note: See 112b above. Either surface surrounding opening groove of 17.
Claim(s) 1, 8-9, 13, 14, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Loree (US 9206827 B2).
With respect to claim 1, Loree discloses a wall mount for a tool box, the wall mount comprising: a base (see note below, flat surface between adjacent 102”s), the base being at least substantially planar and defining a surface area dimensioned to receive a tool box (intended function); at least one support (bottom 102” of figure 14H, see note below) disposed at a lower portion of the base, the at least one support constructed to engage and at least partially support a tool box received by the wall mount (intended function), the at least one support comprising an inwardly curved receptacle to receive the toolbox (inward recess); and a receiver (top 102” of figure 14H) comprising a receiving portion (figure 14H below) and a retainer, the receiving portion extending outwardly and substantially perpendicularly from an upper portion of the base, the retainer (figure 14H below) extending upwardly and substantially perpendicularly from a distal portion of the receiving portion, the receiving portion comprising sides and a top surface (inherent feature, sides visible in figure 14H and top surface is portion with arrow pointing at it in figure 14H) that is coupled to and between the sides, the receiving portion of the receiver being constructed (intended function) to receive a handle of a tool box received by the wall mount.
Examiner Notes: For the purposes of interpretation, the claimed interpretation is that of two 102” that are adjacent on the same panel (101”). The drawings do not depict a close up of this feature. Figure 14H is the closes representation. Adjacent 102”s would have one planar base, there would be no 189, 185, 660. Adjacent 102”s are being utilized for prior art recitation above.
PNG
media_image2.png
425
325
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
312
388
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 8, Loree discloses the wall mount according to claim 1, wherein the at least one support comprises two spaced-apart supports with a first support at a first lateral side of the base and a second support at a second lateral side of the base. (see labeled parts on figure 14H above)
With respect to claim 9, Loree discloses the wall mount according to claim 8, wherein the at least one support comprises a third support disposed between the first support and the second support.
With respect to claim 13, Loree discloses an organizer system, comprising: a wall mount, comprising: a base (see note below, flat surface between adjacent 102”s), the base being at least substantially planar and defining a surface area dimensioned to receive a tool box (intended function); at least one support (bottom 102” of figure 14H, see note below) disposed at a lower portion of the base; and a receiver (top 102” of figure 14H) comprising a receiving portion and a retainer, the receiving portion (figure 14H above) extending outwardly and substantially perpendicularly from at an upper portion of the base, the retainer (figure 14H above) extending upwardly and substantially perpendicularly from a distal portion of the receiving portion, the receiving portion comprising sides and a top surface (inherent feature, sides visible in figure 14H and top surface is portion with arrow pointing at it in figure 14H) that is coupled to and between the sides; and a tool box (640 figure 15) dimensioned for insertion into, and retention by, the wall mount, the tool box comprising a handle (241 mating portion of 640 can be considered graspable), wherein the receiving portion of the receiver being constructed to receive the handle of the tool box received by the wall mount.
Examiner Notes: For the purposes of interpretation, the claimed interpretation is that of two 102” that are adjacent on the same panel (101”). The drawings do not depict a close up of this feature. Figure 14H is the closes representation. Adjacent 102”s would have one planar base, there would be no 189, 185, 660. Adjacent 102”s are being utilized for prior art recitation above.
With respect to claim 14, Loree discloses the organizer system according to claim 13, wherein the retainer comprises one or more recessed areas (groove created by receiving and retainer portion) dimensioned to receive at least a portion of the handle of the tool box received by the wall mount to inhibit translation of the handle along the receiver.
With respect to claim 18, Loree discloses the organizer system according to claim 13, wherein the support comprises a first support at a first side of the base and a second support at a second side of the base. (see figure 14H above for part labels)
With respect to claim 19, Loree discloses the organizer system according to claim 18, wherein the support comprises a third support disposed between the first support and the second support. (see figure 14H above for part labels)
With respect to claim 20, Loree discloses the organizer system according to claim 13, wherein the support comprises a single support (bottom 210”) extending along substantially an entire width of the base of the wall mount or comprises a single support extending along only a portion of a width of the base of the wall mount.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loree (US 9206827 B2).
With respect to claim 16, the references as applied to claim 13, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for and wherein the tool box comprises, at a bottom portion, or more second connectors comprising one or more male features and/or one or more female features to matingly engage corresponding ones of the one or more first connectors of the support. Loree did teach wherein the support of the wall mount comprises one or more first connectors comprising one or more male features and/or one or more female features (groove of 210”). Further, Loree taught of male connectors (214) on the toolbox. 241 was previously considered “handles”. However, it can be understood that multiple item 241s can be used in securing the tool box (640) to the wall mount of Loree. It is obvious to one skilled in the art that additional supports would result in a more secure connection between the toolbox and wall mount. Having a top securement feature (241) and a bottom securement feature (another of 241) would only result in a more secure attachment. This feature would be the result of a rearrangement of parts. Rearrangement of parts is not considered novel under In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) which held the use of claimed feature solves no stated problem and presents no unexpected result and “would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.” This rearrangement is not significant or is anything more than one of numerous configurations a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of allowing stable storage of toolboxes from Lorees invention. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459.
With respect to claim 17, the references as applied to claim 16, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Loree further teaches wherein the one or more first connectors comprise recessed areas, grooves or teeth. (recessed groove as identified in figure 14H above).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20130299533 A1, US 20210059390 A1, US 20040195128 A1, US 20020113187 A1, US 20090277936 A1, US 20210054963 A1, US D932289 S, US 8752802 B1, US D959238 S, and US D931611 S.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the previous drawing objection, applicant states that "Examiner Sanghera and Examiner Grano acknowledged that the drawing objections are moot as mentioned above". However, that opinion was not recorded in the examiner interview summary. Similar issues persist with the 112b around the term “recessed area”.
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 extension fee 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 SYMREN K SANGHERA whose telephone number is (571)272-5305. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached on (571)272-4561. 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.
/S.K.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/ERNESTO A GRANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735