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
Applicant's request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn.
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, 5-8, 10-13, and 15 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.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear if the phrase “a corresponding one or more apertures of the surface of the first shelving unit” (lines 20-21 and lines 24-25) is the same as the “corresponding one or more apertures of the surface of the first shelving” recited in lines 5-6).
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 17, 18, 23, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable US 20240392919 to Pomerantz (earliest effective filing date 09/12/2022) in view of US 5549054 to Lewis.
Regarding claims 17 and 25, Pomerantz ‘919 teaches an electronic shelf label protector (2) comprising: a mounting portion (horizontal mounting portion 14) configured to attach to a first shelving units (shelf 8) of the plurality of shelving units, the first shelving unit (8) having an aperture layout (through-opening 12, figures 3, 4, and 8), and the mounting portion (14) including a plurality of first apertures (through-opening 24, 26 or 28) configured to engage in correspondence with a corresponding plurality of apertures (holes 30) of a surface of the first shelving unit (8), wherein: based on the mounting portion (14) being mounted on the surface of the first shelving unit (8): the plurality of first apertures (24, 26 or 28) of the mounting portion (14) engage in correspondence with the corresponding plurality of apertures (12) of the surface of the first shelving unit (8) to form first corresponding aperture pairs each being configured to accept a fastener (fastener 30, figure 2-4) to mount the protection rail (protector 2) to the first shelving unit (8), and a base portion (bend 18) rotatably connected to the mounting portion (14) by a flexible hinge (44); and a shield portion (shielding portion 16) angularly connected to the base portion (18) and adapted to extend in front of a front edge of the first shelving units (8).
PNG
media_image1.png
298
560
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Pomerantz ‘919 does not teaches the mounting portion comprising a plurality of second apertures in non-correspondence with the plurality of apertures of the surface of the first shelving unit (S). Figure 7 shows a fastener to secure the holder to the shelf.
Lewis teaches a shelf extender comprising: a mounting portion (the back edge of the blank) configured to attach to first shelving units (display shelves with circular apertures 30) and second shelving units (display shelves with diamond-shaped apertures, now shown) of the plurality of shelving units, the first shelving unit having a different aperture layout (circular apertures 16 in spaced sets of four, figure 4) than the second shelving unit (diamond-shaped apertures 18, column 2, lines 35-42), and the mounting portion including: a plurality of first apertures (16) configured to engage in correspondence with a corresponding plurality of apertures of a surface (30a) of the first shelving unit (30), and a plurality of second apertures (18) configured to engage in correspondence with a corresponding plurality of apertures (diamond-shaped apertures) of a surface of the second shelving unit (not shown, column 2, lines 35-42), wherein: based on the mounting portion being mounted on the surface (30a) of the first shelving unit (30): the plurality of first apertures (16) of the mounting portion engage in correspondence with the corresponding plurality of apertures of the surface (30a) of the first shelving unit (30) to form first corresponding aperture pairs each being configured to accept a fastener (plugs or pins 32) to mount the protection rail (shelf extender 10) to the first shelving unit (30), and the plurality of second apertures (diamond-shaped apertures 18) of the mounting portion are in non-correspondence with the plurality of apertures of the surface of the first shelving unit, and based on the mounting portion being mounted on the surface of the second shelving unit (shelf with diamond-shaped apertures): the plurality of second apertures (18) of the mounting portion engage in correspondence with the corresponding plurality of apertures (diamond-shaped apertures) of the surface of the second shelving unit to form second corresponding aperture pairs each being configured to accept a fastener (plugs or pins 32) to mount the protection rail to the second shelving unit (shelf with diamond-shaped apertures), and the plurality of first apertures (16) of the mounting portion are in non-correspondence with the plurality of apertures (diamond-shaped apertures) of the surface of the second shelving unit. Lewis teaches “along the back edge are groupings of circular and diamond-shaped apertures 16, 18 spaced at distances corresponding to similar apertures which are provided along the front of certain display shelves” column 1, line 68 to column 2, line 4).
PNG
media_image2.png
432
506
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
102
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct protector taught by Pomerantz ‘919 with first circular groups of aperture layout and a second diamond shape group of aperture layer as taught by Lewis with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a means to attach to a first shelf with a first shelf aperture layout and a second shelf with a second shelf aperture layout, wherein the first shelf aperture layout is different from the second shelf aperture layout.
Regarding claims 18 and 26, Lewis teaches the plurality of first apertures (circular apertures 16) and the plurality of second apertures (diamond shaped apertures 18) of the mounting portion are arranged in aperture groups spaced along a longitudinal length of the mounting portion, each of the aperture groups including one or more first apertures of the plurality of first apertures and one or more second apertures of the plurality of second apertures.
Regarding claim 23, Lewis teaches based on the mounting portion being mounted on the surface of the first shelving unit (shelf 30 with circular apertures, figure 4), the plurality of second apertures (diamond shaped apertures 18) of the mounting portion are in non-correspondence with the plurality of apertures of the surface of the first shelving unit (30); and based on the mounting portion being mounted on the surface of the second shelving unit (shelf with diamond shaped apertures, not shown) the plurality of first apertures (circular aperture 16) of the mounting portion are in non-correspondence with the plurality of apertures (diamond shaped aperture) of the surface of the second shelving unit (shelf with diamond shaped apertures, not shown).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 5-8, 10-13, and 15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 19-21 and 27-28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a protection rail comprising a mounting portion, a base portion connected to the mounting portion; and a shield portion angularly connected to the base portion and configured to extend in front of a front edge of the first shelving unit, wherein the mounting portion comprising a first and second group of apertures, each group including a first, second and third group of aperture. The protection rail further comprising in combination with other claimed limitations the one or more third apertures of the first and second groups of apertures is spaced from the one or more first apertures of the first and second group of apertures, respectively, in a direction perpendicular to a longitudinal direction extending along a longitudinal length of the mounting portion, the one or more second apertures of the first and second group of apertures, respectively, being: spaced from the one or more first apertures and the one or more third apertures of the first and second group of apertures, respectively, in the longitudinal direction, and centrally located between the one or more first apertures and the one or more third apertures of the first and second group of apertures, respectively in the direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction.
Regarding claim 27, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a protection rail comprising in combination with other claimed limitations the aperture groups comprise three aperture groups, a first of the aperture groups being spaced from a second of the aperture groups by a first distance, the second aperture group being spaced from a third of the aperture groups by a second distance, and the second aperture group being disposed between the first and the third aperture groups with respect to the longitudinal length.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 18, 18, 23 and 26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 CASSANDRA DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6642. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM-4:30 PM.
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.
/CASSANDRA DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights