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
The Amendments filed October 30, 2025 have been entered. Claims 1-10, 12-16, and 20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments have overcome the Claim Objections and the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 for claims 17-19 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed August 7, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 30, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant' s claims 1 and 20 arguments about the teachings of Jude, US 10400506 B2, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The modular insert 1 depicted in Fig 13 is depicted in several other figures which more clearly show modular insert structure which read on the original claims, as detailed in the Non-Final Rejection, without the use of impermissible hindsight. Jude Figs 1, 11, 12 more clearly depict modular insert structure of a top wall, a backwall, a left side wall, a right side wall, and an open end of the insert. Fig 1 depicts the front view of an installed modular insert with a clear perspective of the depth of the insert . Fig 11 depicts a modular insert C for necklaces which shows a necklace, on the left side of the insert, hung from the top wall, inset from the back wall and the open end; and another necklace, on the middle to right side, hung from a shelf vertically offset from the back wall, the left side wall, the right side wall, and the open end of the insert. Fig 12 depicts a different embodiment modular insert of Jude’s disclosed technology (col 3, lines 44-46) which shows gloves hanging from a shelf comprising a hook attached to the shelf inset from each of the back wall, the left side all, the sight side wall, and the open end of the insert. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application would view the modular inserts depicted in Fig 13 in light of the structure depicted in other Figures and as discussed in the patent as Jude teaching “a hanging structure being disposed inside said storage container and configured to support a climbing safety harness in a suspended manner inside said storage container, wherein said hanging structure comprises a hook attached to said top wall inset from each of said back wall, said left side wall, said right side wall, and said open end of said storage container” as written in the amended claim 1 and similarly claimed in the amended claim 20.
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 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klementowicz, III et al., US 20250024939 A1 (hereinafter Klementowicz) in view of Jude, US 10400506 B2.
Regarding claim 1, Klementowicz teaches a climbing safety harness storage arrangement (Fig 1 depicts an storage enclosure 100 for storing essential equipment 124 and 126; In re; Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) the court held a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim) comprising:
a storage container (emergency response kit enclosure 100) comprising a top wall (rooftop 108), a bottom wall (base 102), a back wall (back wall 106), a left side wall (lateral wall 104a), and a right side wall (lateral wall 104b);
said storage container having an open end (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Klementowicz) and being configured to receive and house at least one climbing safety harness therein (100 is structurally capable without modification of receiving and housing at least one climbing safety harness as evidenced by it receiving and housing essential equipment 124 and 126);
a door (door 110) pivotably being attached to said left side wall ([0034] teaches 110 can be mounted on either 104a or 104b) and comprising a handle (handle 120); said door being configured to cover said open end of said storage container to close said storage container (Fig 2 depicts 120 covering the open end of 100);
a locking mechanism (locking mechanism 114) being configured to securely lock said door shut [0039];
a sealing structure (weather resistive gasket 112) being configured and disposed to seal between said door and said open end of said storage container upon said door being closed to minimize or prevent entry of water or insects into said storage container [0038];
a mounting member (mounting means 122) being configured to be connected to said back wall to permit detachable mounting of said storage container on a supporting structure [0043] adjacent a climbing structure in a work environment in which wearing of climbing safety harnesses for climbing is mandated by government regulation.
PNG
media_image1.png
578
503
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Klementowicz
While Klementowicz Fig 1 appears to depict 124 hanging inside 100, Klementowicz is silent on a hanging structure.
Jude teaches door (door 2) mountable storage arrangements (modular insert 1; Fig 1) comprising a hanging structure (see Annotated excerpt Fig 13-Jude) being disposed inside said storage container (see Annotated excerpt Fig 13-Jude) and configured to support a climbing safety harness in a suspended manner inside said storage container (Jude’s storage container is structurally capable without modification of supporting a climbing harness in a suspended manner inside), wherein said hanging structure comprises a hook (Annotated excerpt Fig 13-Jude depicts the hanging structure to be a hook attached to the top wall) attached to said top wall inset from each of said back wall, said left side wall, said right side wall, and said open end of said storage container (Modular insert 1 depicted in Fig 13 is depicted in several other figures which more clearly show modular insert structure of a top wall, a backwall, a left side wall, a right side wall, and an open end of the insert. Fig 1 depicts the front view of an installed modular insert with a clear perspective of the depth of the insert . Fig 11 depicts a modular insert C for necklaces which shows a necklace, on the left side of the insert, hung from the top wall, inset from the back wall and the open end; and another necklace, on the middle to right side, hung from a shelf vertically offset from the back wall, the left side wall, the right side wall, and the open end of the insert. Fig 12 depicts a different embodiment modular insert of Jude’s disclosed technology (col 3, lines 44-46) which shows gloves hanging from a shelf comprising a hook attached to the shelf inset from each of the back wall, the left side all, the sight side wall, and the open end of the insert. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application would view the modular inserts depicted in Fig 13 in light of the structure depicted in other Figures and as discussed in the patent as Jude teaching a hanging structure comprising a hook attached to the top wall inset from the back wall, the left side wall, the right side wall, and the open end of the storage container).
PNG
media_image2.png
453
424
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt Fig 13-Jude
The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that “‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
See MPEP § 2143 for a discussion of the rationales listed above along with examples illustrating how the cited rationales may be used to support a finding of obviousness. See also MPEP § 2144 - § 2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale A, to modify Klementowicz’s apparatus to have the hanging structure of Jude. The prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single reference. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add hooks to a storage locker in order to provide another storage mode for non-rigid equipment inside the enclosure. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with a reasonable expectation of success and, that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and further recognized the results of the combination were predictable, namely a hook for equipment storage mounted to the top wall inside a storage container.
Regarding claim 2, Klementowicz in view of Jude teaches the climbing safety harness storage arrangement of claim 1, wherein: each of said top wall (Klementowicz, 108), said bottom wall (Klementowicz, 102), said left side wall (Klementowicz, 104a), and said right side wall (Klementowicz, 104b) comprises a front end portion disposed at said open end of said storage container (Klementowicz, 100; see Annotated excerpt Fig 1- Klementowicz); said sealing structure disposed on the front end portion (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1- Klementowicz).
Klementowicz does not teach each of said front end portions comprises an end surface and an interior shoulder portion; said interior shoulder portions together define a door frame configured such that said door is disposed within said door frame and flush with said end surfaces upon said door being closed; and said sealing structure is disposed on said interior shoulder portions.
Jude teaches door (2) mountable storage arrangements (1; Fig 1) structured such that the exterior panels (11) form doors enclosing the storage area of the storage arrangements and those doors sit flush against the outside surface of the door (col 3, line 62-col 4, line 8), comprising each of said front end portions comprises an end surface and an interior shoulder portion (see Annotated excerpt Fig 13-Jude); said interior shoulder portions together define a door frame (Annotated excerpt Fig 13-Jude depicts the door frame as a dashed line) configured such that said door is disposed within said door frame and flush with said end surfaces upon said door being closed (col 3, line 62-col 4, line 8); and said sealing structure is disposed on said interior shoulder portions (In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), the court held the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice and design efficacy to place the seal of Klementowicz in a location, on the interior shoulder portion of Jude, in order to ensure the door seals against the door frame to protect the contents of the storage arrangement).
Regarding claim 3, Klementowicz in view of Jude teaches the climbing safety harness storage arrangement of claim 1, wherein:
wherein said locking mechanism (Klementowicz, 114) comprises a security device (Klementowicz, lock body 114a) and a blocking structure (Klementowicz, strike plate 114b);
said right side wall (Klementowicz, 104b) comprises a recess (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Klementowicz depicts the recess to be the indentation formed by 114b and 104a thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition for recess and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term) configured to receive said blocking structure (Klementowicz, while Fig 1 depicts 114b on 104a, [0034] discusses 110 being mountable on either 104a or 104b and [0039] discusses 114b being mounted on the opposite wall from where 110 is mounted); and
said security device is configured to be actuated to move said blocking structure into engagement with said recess to lock said door in a closed position (Klementowicz, [0039]).
Regarding claim 4, Klementowicz in view of Jude teaches the climbing safety harness storage arrangement of claim 3, wherein said security device (Klementowicz, 114a) comprises a combination lock or a key lock (Klementowicz, Fig 2 depicts 114a to be a key lock; [0039]) or a keypad lock (the claim recites alternative so only one is required).
Regarding claim 5, Klementowicz in view of Jude teaches the climbing safety harness storage arrangement of claim 1, wherein:
said back wall (Klementowicz, 106) comprises mounting receptacles (Klementowicz, apertures 118; Fig 3); and
said mounting member comprises a mounting projection (Klementowicz, [0043] discusses 122 to be an anchor bolt whose tip would comprise a projection) configured to be inserted into one of said mounting receptacles to detachably connect said mounting member to said back wall (Klementowicz, [0043]).
Regarding claim 6, Klementowicz in view of Jude teaches the climbing safety harness storage arrangement of claim 5, wherein said mounting receptacles (Klementowicz, 118) are positioned spaced apart at different heights along said back wall (Klementowicz, 106) to permit attachment of said mounting member at different positions on said back wall (Klementowicz, Fig 3 depicts 118 positioned spaced apart at different heights along 106).
Regarding claim 8, Klementowicz in view of Jude teaches the climbing safety harness storage arrangement of claim 1, further comprising at least one additional mounting member (Klementowicz, Fig 3 depicts multiple 118 which would accommodate 122) to permit additional support and stability in detachably mounting said storage container (Klementowicz, 100).
Regarding claim 9, Klementowicz in view of Jude teaches the climbing safety harness storage arrangement of claim 1, wherein said sealing structure (Klementowicz, 112) is disposed on outer perimeter surfaces of said door (Klementowicz, 110; Fig 3; In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) (Prior art disclosed a clock fixed to the stationary steering wheel column of an automobile while the gear for winding the clock moves with steering wheel; mere reversal of such movement, so the clock moves with wheel, was held to be an obvious modification; the reversal of mounting the sealing structure on the door or the frame does not change the basic purpose of the sealing structure to prevent the entry of water or insects into the storage enclosure therefore does provide any new and unexpected result, therefore Klementowicz teaches the door mounted location).
Regarding claim 12, Klementowicz in view of Jude teaches the climbing safety harness storage arrangement of claim 1, further comprising at least one additional hanging structure (Annotated excerpt Fig 13-Jude depicts multiple hanging structures) to permit storage of multiple climbing safety harnesses in an organized manner.
Regarding claim 13, Klementowicz in view of Jude teaches the climbing safety harness storage arrangement of claim 1, wherein each of said hanging structure (see Annotated excerpt Fig 13-Jude) and said at least one additional hanging structure (Annotated excerpt Fig 13-Jude depicts multiple hanging structures) comprises a hook attached to said top wall, which hooks are spaced apart (Annotated excerpt Fig 13-Jude hanging structures to be spaced apart hooks attached to the top wall).
Regarding claim 14, Klementowicz in view of Jude teaches the climbing safety harness storage arrangement of claim 1, wherein said storage container (Klementowicz, 110) is portable (Klementowicz, Fig 4 depicts 100 sized comparably to the storage arrangement 10 depicted in instant Fig 7 therefore 100 is also portable) to permit a user to move said storage container from one location to another location where climbing is to be performed.
Regarding claim 15, Klementowicz in view of Jude teaches the climbing safety harness storage arrangement of claim 1, wherein each of said top wall (Klementowicz, 108), said bottom wall (Klementowicz, 102), said back wall (Klementowicz, 106), said left side wall (Klementowicz, 104a), and said right side wall (Klementowicz, 104b) comprises ultraviolet-resistant and weather-resistant material (Klementowicz, [0019-0021] discusses 100 being constructed of coated steel material which is ultraviolet and weather resistant).
Regarding claim 16, Klementowicz in view of Jude teaches the climbing safety harness storage arrangement of claim 15, wherein said door (Klementowicz, 110) comprises ultraviolet-resistant and weather-resistant material (Klementowicz, [0019-0021]discusses 100, of which 110 is a part, being constructed of coated steel material which is ultraviolet and weather resistant).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klementowicz, US 20250024939 A1, in view of Jude, US 10400506 B2, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stas, US 20190307268 A1.
Regarding claim 7, Klementowicz in view of Jude teaches the climbing safety harness storage arrangement of claim 1; wherein the mounting member (Klementowicz, 122) comprises a bracket (Klementowicz, [0015]).
Klementowicz in view of Jude does not teach wherein said mounting member comprises a bracket configured to be placed or slid onto a supporting structure to hang said storage container in a suspended manner.
Stas teaches a hanging system (Fig 1) comprising a mounting member clip (1) for slide mounting on a rail (3) wherein said mounting member (1) comprises a bracket (Figs 5;6 depicts 1 to be an overhanging member that projects from a structure therefore meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 1 of bracket and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term) configured to be placed or slid onto a supporting structure to hang said storage container in a suspended manner (1 is structurally capable without modification of sliding on 3 to hang an storage container in a suspended manner; Fig 1; [0003]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale B, to substitute the mounting member disclosed by Klementowicz with the mounting member of Stas. The prior art contains a hanging system which differs from the claimed device by the substitution of a component (the mounting member disclosed by Klementowicz) with another component (the mounting member of Stas). Mounting members comprising sliding brackets are known in the art, as evidenced by Stas (Fig 1; [Abstract]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute mounting members in order to facilitate quick mounting and dismounting of storage arrangements to provide an alternate mounting technique. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another with a reasonable expectation of success and the results of the substitution would have been predictable, namely a storage container comprising a mounting member bracket slidable on a supporting structure.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klementowicz, US 20250024939 A1, in view of Jude, US 10400506 B2, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Whitta et al., US 11897658 B2 (hereinafter Whitta).
Regarding claim 10, Klementowicz in view of Jude teaches the climbing safety harness storage arrangement of claim 1, wherein said sealing structure (Klementowicz, 112) weather-resistive gasket (Klementowicz, [0038]).
Klementowicz in view of Jude is silent on wherein said sealing structure comprises a rubber or elastomer gasket.
Whitta teaches a weatherproof storage arrangement with a sealing structure (106) between a container (102) and a lid (104) comprising a rubber or elastomer gasket (col 6, line 63-col 7, line 17; Fig 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale B, to substitute the material silent sealing structure disclosed by Klementowicz with the rubber or elastomer sealing structure of Whitta. The prior art contains a storage arrangement which differs from the claimed device by the substitution of a component (the material silent seal structure disclosed by col 6, line 63-col 7, line 17; Fig 4) with another component (the rubber or elastomer sealing structure of Whitta). Sealing structures comprising a rubber or elastomer gasket are known in the art, as evidenced by Whitta in col 6, line 63-col 7, line 17. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute Klementowicz’ seal with Whitta’s seal in order to more clearly define the materials and functionality of the overall storage arrangement to support purchasing and marketing. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another with a reasonable expectation of success and the results of the substitution would have been predictable, namely a storage arrangement with a rubber or elastomer sealing gasket between door and container that is configured to function in the same manner as the material silent sealing structure disclosed by Klementowicz.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klementowicz, US 20250024939 A1, in view of Jude, US 10400506 B2, Stas, US 20190307268 A1, and Whitta, US 11897658 B2.
Regarding claim 20, Klementowicz teaches a climbing safety harness storage arrangement (Fig 1 depicts an storage enclosure 100 for storing essential equipment 124 and 126; In re; Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) the court held a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim) comprising:
a storage container (emergency response kit enclosure 100) comprising a top wall (rooftop 108), a bottom wall (base 102), a back wall (back wall 106), a left side wall (lateral wall 104a), and a right side wall (lateral wall 104b); said storage container having an open end (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Klementowicz) and being configured to receive and house at least one climbing safety harness therein (100 is structurally capable without modification of receiving and housing at least one climbing safety harness as evidenced by it receiving and housing essential equipment 124 and 126); each of said top wall, said bottom wall, said left side wall, and said right side wall comprises a front end portion disposed at said open end of said storage container (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1- Klementowicz); said right side wall comprises a recess (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Klementowicz depicts the recess to be the indentation formed by 114b and 104a thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition for recess and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term); said back wall comprises mounting receptacles (apertures 118; Fig 3); said mounting receptacles are positioned spaced apart at different heights along said back wall to permit attachment of said mounting member at different positions on said back wall (Fig 3 depicts 118 positioned spaced apart at different heights along 106); said storage container is portable (Fig 4 depicts 100 sized comparably to the storage arrangement 10 depicted in instant Fig 7 therefore 100 is also portable) to permit a user to move said storage container from one location to another location where climbing is to be performed (see claim 1 intended use discussion); each of said top wall, said bottom wall, said back wall, said left side wall, and said right side wall comprises ultraviolet-resistant and weather-resistant material ([0019-0021] discusses 100 being constructed of coated steel material which is ultraviolet and weather resistant);
a door (door 110) pivotably attached to said left side wall ([0034] teaches 110 can be mounted on either 104a or 104b) and comprising a handle (handle 120); said door being configured to cover said open end of said storage container to close said storage container (Fig 2 depicts 120 covering the open end of 100); said door comprises ultraviolet-resistant and weather-resistant material ([0019-0021]discusses 100, of which 110 is a part, being constructed of coated steel material which is ultraviolet and weather resistant);
a locking mechanism (locking mechanism 114) configured to securely lock said door shut [0039]; wherein said locking mechanism comprises a security device (lock body 114a) and a blocking structure (strike plate 114b); said recess configured to receive said blocking structure (while Fig 1 depicts 114b on 104a, [0034] discusses 110 being mountable on either 104a or 104b and [0039] discusses 114b being mounted on the opposite wall from where 110 is mounted); said security device is configured to be actuated to move said blocking structure into engagement with said recess to lock said door in a closed position [0039]; said security device comprises a combination lock or a key lock (Fig 2 depicts 114a to be a key lock; [0039]) or a keypad lock (the claim recites alternative so only one is required);
a sealing structure (weather resistive gasket 112) configured and disposed to seal between said door and said open end of said storage container upon said door being closed to minimize or prevent entry of water or insects into said storage container [0038]; one of (A) and (B): (A) said sealing structure is disposed on outer perimeter surfaces of said door (Klementowicz, 110; Fig 3; In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) (Prior art disclosed a clock fixed to the stationary steering wheel column of an automobile while the gear for winding the clock moves with steering wheel; mere reversal of such movement, so the clock moves with wheel, was held to be an obvious modification; the reversal of mounting the sealing structure on the door or the frame does not change the basic purpose of the sealing structure to prevent the entry of water or insects into the storage enclosure therefore does provide any new and unexpected result, therefore Klementowicz teaches the door mounted location), and (B) said sealing structure is disposed on said interior shoulder portions (the claim recites alternative so only one is required);
a mounting member (mounting means 122) being configured to be connected to said back wall to permit detachable mounting of said storage container on a supporting structure [0043] adjacent a climbing structure in a work environment in which wearing of climbing safety harnesses for climbing is mandated by government regulation; said mounting member comprises a mounting projection ([0043] discusses 122 to be an anchor bolt whose tip would comprise a projection) configured to be inserted into one of said mounting receptacles to detachably connect said mounting member to said back wall [0043]; said mounting member comprises a bracket [0015]; and
at least one additional mounting member (Fig 3 depicts multiple 118 which would accommodate 122) to permit additional support and stability in detachably mounting said storage container.
Klementowicz does not teach each of said front end portions comprises an end surface and an interior shoulder portion; said interior shoulder portions together define a door frame configured such that said door is disposed within said door frame and flush with said end surfaces upon said door being closed.
Jude teaches door (2) mountable storage arrangements (1; Fig 1) structured such that the exterior panels (11) form doors enclosing the storage area of the storage arrangements and those doors sit flush against the outside surface of the door (col 3, line 62-col 4, line 8), comprising each of said front end portions comprises an end surface and an interior shoulder portion (see Annotated excerpt Fig 13-Jude); said interior shoulder portions together define a door frame (Annotated excerpt Fig 13-Jude depicts the door frame as a dashed line) configured such that said door is disposed within said door frame and flush with said end surfaces upon said door being closed (col 3, line 62-col 4, line 8; In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), the court held the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice and design efficacy to place the seal of Klementowicz in a location, on the interior shoulder portion of Jude, in order to ensure the door seals against the door frame to protect the contents of the storage arrangement).
Klementowicz is silent on wherein said sealing structure comprises a rubber or elastomer gasket.
Whitta teaches a weatherproof storage arrangement with a sealing structure (106) between a container (102) and a lid (104) comprising a rubber or elastomer gasket (col 6, line 63-col 7, line 17; Fig 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale B, to substitute the material silent sealing structure disclosed by Klementowicz with the rubber or elastomer sealing structure of Whitta. The prior art contains a storage arrangement which differs from the claimed device by the substitution of a component (the material silent seal structure disclosed by col 6, line 63-col 7, line 17; Fig 4) with another component (the rubber or elastomer sealing structure of Whitta). Sealing structures comprising a rubber or elastomer gasket are known in the art, as evidenced by Whitta in col 6, line 63-col 7, line 17. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute Klementowicz’ seal with Whitta’s seal in order to more clearly define the materials and functionality of the overall storage arrangement to support purchasing and marketing. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another with a reasonable expectation of success and the results of the substitution would have been predictable, namely a storage arrangement with a rubber or elastomer sealing gasket between door and container that is configured to function in the same manner as the material silent sealing structure disclosed by Klementowicz.
While Klementowicz Fig 1 appears to depict 124 hanging inside 100, Klementowicz is silent on a hanging structure disposed inside said storage container and configured to support a climbing safety harness in a suspended manner inside said storage container; said hanging structure comprises a hook attached to said top wall inset from each of said back wall, said left side wall, said right side wall, and said open end of said storage container; at least one additional hanging structure to permit storage of multiple climbing safety harnesses in an organized manner.
Jude teaches door (door 2) mountable storage arrangements (modular insert 1; Fig 1) comprising a hanging structure (see Annotated excerpt Fig 13-Jude) being disposed inside said storage container (see Annotated excerpt Fig 13-Jude) and configured to support a climbing safety harness in a suspended manner inside said storage container (Jude’s storage container is structurally capable without modification of supporting a climbing harness in a suspended manner inside); said hanging structure (see Annotated excerpt Fig 13-Jude) comprises a hook attached to said top wall (Annotated excerpt Fig 13-Jude depicts the hanging structure to be a hook attached to the top wall) inset from each of said back wall, said left side wall, said right side wall, and said open end of said storage container (Modular insert 1 depicted in Fig 13 is depicted in several other figures which more clearly show modular insert structure of a top wall, a backwall, a left side wall, a right side wall, and an open end of the insert. Fig 1 depicts the front view of an installed modular insert with a clear perspective of the depth of the insert . Fig 11 depicts a modular insert C for necklaces which shows a necklace, on the left side of the insert, hung from the top wall, inset from the back wall and the open end; and another necklace, on the middle to right side, hung from a shelf vertically offset from the back wall, the left side wall, the right side wall, and the open end of the insert. Fig 12 depicts a different embodiment modular insert of Jude’s disclosed technology (col 3, lines 44-46) which shows gloves hanging from a shelf comprising a hook attached to the shelf inset from each of the back wall, the left side all, the sight side wall, and the open end of the insert. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application would view the modular inserts depicted in Fig 13 in light of the structure depicted in other Figures and as discussed in the patent as Jude teaching a hanging structure comprising a hook attached to the top wall inset from the back wall, the left side wall, the right side wall, and the open end of the storage container); at least one additional hanging structure (Annotated excerpt Fig 13-Jude depicts multiple hanging structures) to permit storage of multiple climbing safety harnesses in an organized manner.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale A, to modify Klementowicz’s apparatus to have the hanging structure of Jude. The prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single reference. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add hooks to a storage locker in order to provide another storage mode for non-rigid equipment inside the enclosure. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with a reasonable expectation of success and, that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and further recognized the results of the combination were predictable, namely hooks for equipment storage mounted inside a storage container.
Klementowicz does not teach wherein said mounting member comprises a bracket configured to be placed or slid onto a supporting structure to hang said storage container in a suspended manner.
Stas teaches a hanging system (Fig 1) comprising a mounting member clip (1) for slide mounting on a rail (3) wherein said mounting member (1) comprises a bracket (Figs 5;6 depicts 1 to be an overhanging member that projects from a structure therefore meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 1 of bracket and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term) configured to be placed or slid onto a supporting structure to hang said storage container in a suspended manner (1 is structurally capable without modification of sliding on 3 to hang an storage container in a suspended manner; Fig 1; [0003]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale B, to substitute the mounting member disclosed by Klementowicz with the mounting member of Stas. The prior art contains a hanging system which differs from the claimed device by the substitution of a component (the mounting member disclosed by Klementowicz) with another component (the mounting member of Stas). Mounting members comprising sliding brackets are known in the art, as evidenced by Stas (Fig 1; [Abstract]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute mounting members in order to facilitate quick mounting and dismounting of storage arrangements to provide an alternate mounting technique. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another with a reasonable expectation of success and the results of the substitution would have been predictable, namely a storage container comprising a mounting member bracket slidable on a supporting structure.
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 STEVEN A TULLIA whose telephone number is (571)272-6434. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Kristina Fulton can be reached on (571)272-7376. 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.
/STEVEN A TULLIA/Examiner, Art Unit 3675