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 .
This non-final Office action is in response to Applicant’s continuing patent application number 18/779,647 filed on 7/22/2024.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 2-18) in the reply filed on 4/1/2026 is acknowledged.
Currently, claims 2-18 are pending and examined.
Claims 1 and 19-23 have been cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/1/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-28 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S Patent No. 12,055,338. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of structures of the instant claims are substantially encompassed within the patented claims.
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.
Claim(s) 2-4, 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US No. 2023/0225065 to Sandnes et al. (‘Sandnes’).
Re claim 2: Sandnes discloses a display case door 100 comprising: an insulated panel assembly 108 comprising a door frame 102 that extends about the insulated panel assembly 108; an electronic display 110 configured to hang from a top rail 162 of the door frame 102; and a plurality of mounting blocks 106/106 coupling the electronic display 110 to at least one side rail of the door frame 102 (Fig. 1).
Re claim 3: wherein the plurality of mounting blocks 106/106 comprise: a first mounting block 106 coupling a left side of the electronic display 110 to a left side of the door frame 102; and a second mounting block 106 coupling a right side of the electronic display 110 to a right side of the door frame 102.
Re claim 4: wherein the plurality of mounting blocks 106/106 span across a gap 107 between the electronic display 110 and the door frame 102.
Re claim 14: wherein each mounting block 106 of the plurality of mounting blocks 106/106 are further defined by a width, wherein the width of each mounting block 106 of the plurality of mounting blocks 106/106 is the same (see Fig. 2).
Re claim 15: wherein each mounting block of the plurality of mounting blocks 106/106 are further defined by a width, wherein the widths of the mounting blocks 106/106 on the left side of the insulated panel assembly 108 are different that the widths of the mounting blocks 06/106 on the right side of the insulated panel assembly 108 (Fig. 4A).
Re claim 16: further comprising a hanger assembly 402 configured to hang the electronic display 108 from the top rail of the door frame 102, the hanger assembly 402 comprising: a support plate 406 comprising a least one pin 408a; and a hanger bracket 402 comprising a slot (i.e. wherein 408a points to, Fig. 4B) sized to accept the pin.
Re claim 17: further comprising a hinge bracket 111 configured to couple between at least one of the mounting blocks 106/106 and the electronic display 108.
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) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US No. 2023/0225065 to Sandnes.
Re claim 13: Sandnes discloses basic structures of the claimed invention as stated above but does not disclose expressly wherein the plurality of mounting blocks comprises extruded aluminum. However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose different materials, e.g. extruded aluminum, in order to optimize lightweight and non-corrosive purposes for the display case door assembly. Note, the Examiner notes that the language "molded onto" is considered to be product-by-process language. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP 2113 and 2173.05(p).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-12 and 18 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see attached PTO-892).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to CHI Q. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6847. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7AM-5PM or email: chi.nguyen@uspto.gov. If attempt to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571) 270-3238. 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://pairdirect.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197.
/CHI Q NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
PNG
media_image1.png
100
143
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Prosecution Insights