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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the “sales rack holder 2” , “sales rack holder 2’”or “sales rack holder 32’” as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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 § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 5, 12, 13, 15, 16, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Eutzler (US Pat. 3,690,130).
Regarding claims 1, 9, 12, 13, 21, Eutzler discloses the claimed:
Sales rack holder, met by clamp 14 used to attach the elongated retainer box 12 mounted to a garment bar 10 (FIGS. 1–2; Description (2)–(3));
Releasably securable to a sales rack member, met by legs 13 with clamps 14 and screws 15 detachably clamp the box to the horizontal garment bar 10; removing the screws releases it (Description (2)–(3));
Mounting surface for anti-theft devices, met by front wall 19 with a horizontal row of slots 26 and internal pegs 28 serves as the mounting interface for multiple security attachments (Description (3)–(4)); the cover 21 closes the slots;
Each anti-theft device comprising a tether, met by each protected garment is secured by a flexible member 27 (a chain) that passes through a buttonhole and is anchored in the box; the chain is a tether, with a large stop element (button 30) to prevent withdrawal (Abstract; Description (3)–(5), (8)–(9)); and
Holder distinct from, and positioned between, the anti-theft devices and the sales rack member, met by the retainer box 12 is a separate component clamped to bar 10; the chains 27 attach to and are retained by the box, which is physically interposed between the chains (anti-theft devices) and the garment bar (FIGS. 1–2; Description (2)–(5)).
Regarding claims 3, 15, Eutzler discloses sales rack holder includes a plurality of dual-arm clamping mechanisms, each said dual-arm clamping mechanism configured to releasably attach a respective one of the anti-theft devices, which is met by each clamp 14 with legs 13 attached to retainer box 12 including the plurality of slots 26 and internal pegs 28 serves as the mounting interface for multiple security attachments with the attached flexible members 27 (Figure 1).
Regarding claims 4, 16, Eutzler discloses the sales rack holder is releasably securable to the sales rack member by a sleeve, which is met by either clamps 14 (Fig. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 2, 7, 8, 18-20, 23, 24, 27-29 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eutzler (US Pat. 3,690,130) in view of SOUCHKO (FR-2668197-A1).
Regarding claims 2, 20, 23, 24, 27-29, Etzler does not specifically disclose the claimed anti-theft devices comprising a tether is an anti-theft device comprising a retractable tether. However, the reference teaches flexible members 27, which are to be attached to the garment and inserted through the slots of the retainer box 12 (Figs. 1-3).
In the same field of endeavor, SOUCHKO discloses an antitheft display in which a cable 8 or 8-A, associated with the hanger 10, is passed through one of the sleeves. The automatic winder 17 retracting the excess cable when the garment is suspended from the cross member 1 and returning it when the customer moves it away to try it on for example (page 1, last four paragraphs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date, to modify Etzler to include a retractable tether, as disclosed by SOUCHKO, to provide allowing the customer to extend the attached merchandise for easy viewing.
Regarding claims 7, 18, Eutzler discloses the mounting surface is configured for parallel or substantially parallel orientation when the salesrack holder is secured to a sales rack member, which is met by retainer box 12 is a separate component clamped to bar 10 (Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 8, 19, Eutzler discloses the mounting surface is configured for perpendicular or substantially perpendicular orientation when the sales rack holder is secured to a sales rack member, which is met by either clamps 14 (Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 5, 10, 17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eutzler (US Pat. 3,690,130) in view of Leyden et al. (5,823,358).
Regarding claims 5, 10, 17, 22, Eutzler does not disclose the sales rack holder is releasably securable to the sales rack member by a pivotable arm, but instead discloses clamps 14 with legs 13 attached to retainer box 12 including the plurality of slots 26 and internal pegs 28 serves as the mounting interface for multiple security attachments with the attached flexible members 27 (Figure 1).
In the same field of endeavor, Leyden discloses a security system for garment display including a bore 56 (equivalent to a sales rack, see Fig. 1) to hold garments on a hanger 25. The hangers are secured from removal when a pivotable cover 36 locked in place (Figures 1 and 2).
Since Eutzler discloses a structure for attaching a plurality of antitheft devices to a sales rack, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date, to use other types of attachment means, such as Leyden’s pivotable arm, as an alternative type/embodiment to prevent theft of merchandise.
Claim(s) 6, 11, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eutzler (US Pat. 3,690,130) in view of Fernbaugh (3,985,183).
Regarding claims 6, Eutzler does not specifically disclose the mounting surface supports mechanical interfaces that orient anti-theft devices in a bank configuration. In the same field of endeavor, Fernbaugh discloses a security device comprising a rod 2 for supporting a plurality of clothes (Fig. 1). The clothes are placed on hangers with cables are connected to a removable collar 110. The collar 10 comprises of various movable components that are placed in either a locked or unlocked position (mechanical) to prevent theft (Figures 14, 15; col. 6, lines 40-68 through col. 7, lines 1-54). Since Eutzler discloses a structure for attaching a plurality of antitheft devices to a sales rack, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date, to use other types mechanical antitheft devices in a bank configuration, as taught by Fernbaugh, as a different type/embodiment to prevent theft of merchandise.
Regarding claims 11, 14, Eutzler discloses:
a sales rack holder releasably securable to a sales rack member without penetrating or permanently altering the sales rack member, wherein each of said anti-theft devices comprises a tether, met by the retainer box 12 is a separate component clamped to bar 10; the chains 27 attach to and are retained by the box, which is physically interposed between the chains (anti-theft devices) and the garment bar (FIGS. 1–2; Description (2)–(5)). Eutzler does not specifically disclose the claimed sales rack holder comprising mechanical interfaces structured to receive and support anti-theft devices separate from the sales rack member. In the same field of endeavor, Fernbaugh discloses a security device comprising a rod 2 for supporting a plurality of clothes (Fig. 1). The clothes are placed on hangers with cables are connected to a removable collar 110. The collar 10 comprises of various movable components that are placed in either a locked or unlocked position (mechanical) to prevent theft (Figures 14, 15; col. 6, lines 40-68 through col. 7, lines 1-54). Since Eutzler discloses a structure for attaching a plurality of antitheft devices to a sales rack, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date, to use other types mechanical antitheft devices in a bank configuration, as taught by Fernbaugh, as a different type/embodiment to prevent theft of merchandise.
Claim(s) 25 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eutzler (US Pat. 3,690,130) in view of Leyden et al. (5,823,358) further in view of SOUCHKO (FR-2668197-A1).
Regarding claims 25, 30, neither Eutzler nor Leyden disclose the anti-theft devices comprising a tether is an anti-theft device comprising a retractable tether. In the same field of endeavor, SOUCHKO discloses an antitheft display in which a cable 8 or 8-A, associated with the hanger 10, is passed through one of the sleeves. The automatic winder 17 retracting the excess cable when the garment is suspended from the cross member 1 and returning it when the customer moves it away to try it on for example (page 1, last four paragraphs). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date, to modify Etzler in view of Leyden, to include a retractable tether, as disclosed by SOUCHKO, to provide allowing the customer to extend the attached merchandise for easy viewing.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eutzler (US Pat. 3,690,130) in view of Fernbaugh (3,985,183) further in view of SOUCHKO (FR-2668197-A1).
Regarding claim 26, neither Eutzler nor Fernbaugh disclose the anti-theft devices comprising a tether is an anti-theft device comprising a retractable tether. In the same field of endeavor, SOUCHKO discloses an antitheft display in which a cable 8 or 8-A, associated with the hanger 10, is passed through one of the sleeves. The automatic winder 17 retracting the excess cable when the garment is suspended from the cross member 1 and returning it when the customer moves it away to try it on for example (page 1, last four paragraphs). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date, to modify Etzler in view of Fernbaugh, to include a retractable tether, as disclosed by SOUCHKO, to provide allowing the customer to extend the attached merchandise for easy viewing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-17 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 DAVETTA W GOINS whose telephone number is (571)272-2957. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM EST.
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.
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.
/DAVETTA W GOINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2689