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 .
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 21 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. Regarding claim 21, line 2, “at least one magnet” is vague and indefinite as to whether it is referring to the “at least one magnet recited in claim 19, last line.
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.
Claims 19, 21, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Flieger et al (DE-102007011601-A1).
Regarding claim 19, Flieger discloses a magnetic shower item mounting system comprising: a magnetic board (35, figure 6) configured to be mounted on a shower wall (figure 3), the magnetic board having a perimeter edge, a first side surface and a second side surface, the magnetic board is formed from a magnetic material, and an entire area of the first side surface is magnetic, the magnetic board has a height (figure 6) that is greater than a height of a shower item (shower head 13, figure 6) to be magnetically attached to the first side surface via at least one magnet (23, 28, 32, figure 1 or 142, figure 7) on the shower item (shower head 13).
Regarding claim 21, Flieger discloses the magnetic shower item mounting system of claim 19, further comprising a shower item (shower head 13) having at least one magnet (23, 28, 32, figure 1 or 142, figure 7) disposed thereon wherein the shower item is magnetically attachable to the first side surface of the magnetic board (35).
Regarding claim 22, Flieger discloses the magnetic shower item mounting system of claim 19, wherein the first side surface is planar (35).
Regarding claim 23, Flieger discloses a magnetic shower item mounting system comprising: a shower item (shower head 13) having at least one magnet (23, 28, 32, figure 1 or 142, figure 7) disposed thereon, the shower item (shower head 13) having a first height (figure 6); a magnetic board (35, figure 6) configured to be mounted on a shower wall, the magnetic board having a perimeter edge, a first side surface and a second side surface; the first side surface is planar (figure 6); the magnetic board is formed from a magnetic material, and an entire area of the first side surface is magnetic; and the magnetic board (35, figure 6) has a second height that is greater than the first height of the shower item (shower head 13, figure 6).
Claims 19, 21, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Burtt (US publication no. 20180338651).
Regarding claim 19, Burtt discloses a magnetic shower item mounting system comprising: a magnetic board (22/34, or 116, figure 8) configured to be mounted on a shower wall (14), the magnetic board (22/34 or 116, figure 8) having a perimeter edge, a first side surface and a second side surface, the magnetic board is formed from a magnetic material, and an entire area of the first side surface is magnetic, the magnetic board has a height (figure 8) that is greater than a height of a shower item (112d, figure 8) to be magnetically attached to the first side surface (116) via at least one magnet (124a, figure 10) on the shower item (112d, figures 8 and 10).
Regarding claim 21, Burtt discloses the magnetic shower item mounting system of claim 19, further comprising a shower item (112d, figures 8 and 10) having at least one magnet (124a, figure 10) disposed thereon wherein the shower item is magnetically attachable to the first side surface (116) of the magnetic board.
Regarding claim 22, Burtt discloses the magnetic shower item mounting system of claim 19, wherein the first side surface (116, figure 8) is planar.
Regarding claim 23, Burtt discloses a magnetic shower item mounting system comprising: a shower item (112d, figures 8 and 10) having at least one magnet (124a, figure 10) disposed thereon, the shower item (112d) having a first height (112d, figure 8); a magnetic board (116, figure 8) configured to be mounted on a shower wall, the magnetic board having a perimeter edge, a first side surface and a second side surface; the first side surface is planar (116); the magnetic board is formed from a magnetic material, and an entire area of the first side surface is magnetic; and the magnetic board (116, figure 8) has a second height that is greater than the first height of the shower item (112d, figure 8).
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 7-11 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flieger et al (DE-102007011601-A1).
Regarding clam 7, Flieger discloses a magnetic shower item mounting system comprising: a magnetic board (35) configured to be mounted on a shower wall (figure 3), the magnetic board (35) having a first side surface and a second side surface, the magnetic board is formed from a magnetic material, and an entire area of the first side surface is magnetic, whereby a shower item (shower head 13) having at least one magnet magnet (23, 28, 32, figure 1 or 142, figure 7) disposed thereon can be magnetically attached anywhere on the first side surface.
Flieger discloses the claimed invention except for the magnetic board has a height that is at least 1.0 foot. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to have made the magnetic board of Flieger to be at a height of at least 1.0 foot, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 8, Flieger discloses the magnetic shower item mounting system of claim 7, further comprising a shower item (shower head 13) having at least one magnet (23, 28, 32, figure 1 or 142, figure 7) disposed thereon wherein the shower item is magnetically attachable to the first side surface of the magnetic board (22/34).
Regarding claim 9, Flieger discloses the magnetic shower item mounting system of claim 7, wherein the first side surface is planar (35).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Flieger discloses the magnetic shower item mounting system of claim 7 and the magnetic board (35) constructed from metal or ferrous metal. Flieger discloses in the detailed description “The holding plate 35 is advantageously magnetic or ferromagnetic and consists of iron or has a layer of iron.”
Regarding claims 15-17, Flieger discloses the claimed invention except for the magnetic board has a height or a width that is at least 1.0 foot or 2 feet. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to have made the magnetic board of Flieger to be at a width or a height of at least 1.0 foot or 2 feet, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 7-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burtt (US publication no. 20180338651).
Regarding clam 7, Burtt discloses a magnetic shower item mounting system comprising: a magnetic board (22/34) configured to be mounted on a shower wall (14), the magnetic board (22/34) having a first side surface and a second side surface, the magnetic board is formed from a magnetic material, and an entire area of the first side surface is magnetic, whereby a shower item (12) having at least one magnet (24) disposed thereon can be magnetically attached anywhere on the first side surface.
Burtt discloses the claimed invention except for the magnetic board has a height that is at least 1.0 foot. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to have made the magnetic board of Burtt to be at a height of at least 1.0 foot, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 8, Burtt discloses the magnetic shower item mounting system of claim 7, further comprising a shower item (12) having at least one magnet (24) disposed thereon wherein the shower item is magnetically attachable to the first side surface of the magnetic board (22/34).
Regarding claim 9, Burtt discloses the magnetic shower item mounting system of claim 7, wherein the first side surface is planar (34).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Burtt discloses the magnetic shower item mounting system of claim 7 and is silent as to the magnetic board constructed from metal or ferrous metal. However, the magnetic board (22/34) is disclosed as a magnet. Magnets are typically made of ferromagnetic metals.
Regarding 12, Burtt discloses the magnetic shower item mounting system of claim 7, further comprising a grab bar (plate 18 can be used as a grab bar), and the magnetic board (22/34) and the grab bar (18) are attached to one another.
Regarding claim 13, Burtt discloses the magnetic shower item mounting system of claim 12, wherein the grab bar (18) is attached to the shower wall (14) and the magnetic board (22/34) is attached to the grab bar (18).
Regarding claim 14, Burtt discloses the magnetic shower item mounting system of claim 12, wherein the grab bar (18) includes a portion with a roughened texture (the holes 26 on the surfaces of 18 are roughened texture).
Regarding claim 15 (new), Burtt discloses the magnetic shower item mounting system of claim 7 except for wherein the magnetic board has a width that is at least 1.0 foot. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to have made the magnetic board of Burtt to be at a width of at least 1.0 foot, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 16 (New), Burtt discloses the magnetic shower item mounting system of claim 7 except for wherein the height of the magnetic board is at least 2.0 feet. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to have made the magnetic board of Burtt to be at a height of at least 2.0 feet, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 17 (New), Burtt discloses the magnetic shower item mounting system of claim 7 except for wherein the magnetic board has a width that is at least 2.0 feet. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to have made the magnetic board of Burtt to be at a width of at least 2.0 feet, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 18, 20, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flieger et al (DE-102007011601-A1) in view of Conti (US Publication No. 20180202602). Flieger discloses all the claimed features of applicant’s invention except for a water-resistant material surround along the perimeter edge. Conti discloses a magnet (30, figures 3-5) having perimeter surrounded by water resistant material (20, figure 4 is of plastic material as discussed in paragraph [0021]; note that plastic is water resistant material). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to have framed the magnetic board of Flieger with water resistant material as taught by Conti for the well-known purpose of aesthetics.
Claims 18, 20, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burtt (US publication no. 20180338651) in view of Conti (US Publication No. 20180202602). Burtt discloses all the claimed features of applicant’s invention except for a water-resistant material surround along the perimeter edge. Conti discloses a magnet (30, figures 3-5) having perimeter surrounded by water resistant material (20, figure 4 is of plastic material as discussed in paragraph [0021]; note that plastic is water resistant material). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to have framed the magnetic board of Burtt with water resistant material as taught by Conti for the well-known purpose of aesthetics.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Burtt does not show the magnetic board to be at least 1 foot in height or width as now claimed. As discussed above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to have made the magnetic board of Burtt to be at a height or a width of at least 1.0 foot, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art of record further discloses magnetic item mounting system of interest.
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 Ko (Korie) H Chan whose telephone number is (571)272-6816. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday -Friday, 8:00 - 5:00 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jonathan Liu can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Ko H Chan/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Khc