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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this application. As of the date of this application, no Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) has been filed on behalf of this case.
Response to Amendment
In the amendment dated 12/09/2025, the following has occurred: Claims 1, 4, 12, 16, and 20 have been amended; No claims have been canceled; No claims have been added. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 12-19 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.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). More specifically, the argument that: “The extension portion 50 of Jeong is not "attached to the second planar surface (which is opposite a "first planar surface") of a main body, but instead appears to pass through a hole formed in the support member 100, which may reduce the load capable of being supported by the mounting member, as compared to the claimed main body with a unitary structure.” – As Jeong is being used to modify DeGirolamo, arguments based on aspects of Jeong that are not used in the modification do not apply as the connection of the holding member and main body is not part of the modification.
In response to applicant’s argument that: “Even if the support member 100 of Jeong (with buried space portion 108 for receiving the magnet member 180) is somehow combined with DeGirolamo, it would still require the complicated structure in order to secure the magnet member 180, and also require reconstruction of a wall fixture 12 of DeGirolamo to support magnetization.” – The examiner respectfully disagrees. Modifying the bracket of DeGirolamo to have a recessed portion for receiving a magnet is not a “complicated” structure, as it is only a depression formed in a bracket that would not require a drastic redesign of the bracket, and as modifying the bracket of DeGirolamo with such a depression would provide the benefits indicated in the motivation statement and would not destroy any functionality of its brackets, the change is obvious. Additionally, forming the wall of DeGirolamo out of a ferromagnetic material is simple change of the material of element 12 to a specific type of metal, and it is clear that DeGirolamo does not require the material type of element 12 to be something specific and lists metals as a potential option, it even lists ferromagnetic metals as a material for forming its bracket and therefore these materials are clearly known and used in the manufacturing process (DeGirolamo: Col. 4, Ln. 11-26).
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 1-8, 10, 12-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeGirolamo (US 5,379,976) in view of Jeong (KR 20-2016-0003161).
In regards to Claim 1, DeGirolamo discloses a storage system comprising: a wall (DeGirolamo: Fig. 1-3; 12) comprising one or more slits (DeGirolamo: Fig. 1-3; 16); a bracket (DeGirolamo: Fig. 1-2, 4-5; 26) configured to support an item, the bracket comprising: a main body (DeGirolamo: Fig. 1-2, 4-5; 28) defining a first planar surface (DeGirolamo: Fig. 2; 30) configured to be flush with the wall and an opposite second planar surface (DeGirolamo: Fig. 2; 32) for receiving a holding member; the holding member (DeGirolamo: Fig. 1-2, 4-5; 52) attached to the second planar surface of the main body and configured to receive the item; and a lip (DeGirolamo: Fig. 2, 4-5; 38) configured to be received by the one or more slits.
DeGirolamo fails to disclose the bracket comprising: a magnet received within a main body; wherein the magnet is configured to be attracted to the wall. However, Jeong teaches a bracket (Jeong: Fig. 2-3; 1000b) comprising: a main body (Jeong: Fig. 4; 100) defining a first planar surface (Jeong: Annotated Fig. 4; S1) configured to be flush with a wall and an opposite second planar surface (Jeong: Annotated Fig. 4; S2) for receiving a holding member; a magnet (Jeong: Fig. 2-4; 180) received within a main body; wherein the magnet is configured to be attracted to a wall (Jeong: Fig. 3-4; 500).
DeGirolamo and Jeong are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. article support brackets/systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the brackets and wall in DeGirolamo with the magnet and ferromagnetic material from Jeong, respectively, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a bracket with a magnetic means that that can be more easily attached to a wall, thereby lowering the difficulty of attaching the bracket to the wall by removing the need to align the bracket with a second slit after attaching it to a first slit, as well as improving the stability of the bracket once secured (Jeong: [0005]-[0007]).
In regards to Claim 2, DeGirolamo, as modified, teaches the storage system of claim 1, wherein the magnet (Jeong: Fig. 2-4; 180) is positioned adjacent to the wall and is configured to stabilize the bracket at the wall.
In regards to Claim 3, DeGirolamo, as modified, teaches the storage system of claim 1, wherein the magnet (Jeong: Fig. 2-4; 180) is mounted to the bracket.
In regards to Claim 4, DeGirolamo, as modified, teaches the storage system of claim 1, wherein the magnet (Jeong: Fig. 2-4; 180) is received within the main body so as to be flush with the first planar surface (DeGirolamo: Fig. 2; 30).
In regards to Claim 5, DeGirolamo, as modified, teaches the storage system of claim 4, wherein the lip (DeGirolamo: Fig. 2, 4-5; 38) is offset relative to the main body of the bracket.
In regards to Claim 6, DeGirolamo, as modified, teaches the storage system of claim 1, wherein the wall comprises a plurality of the slits (DeGirolamo: Fig. 1-3; 16) extending transversely across the wall.
In regards to Claim 7, DeGirolamo, as modified, teaches the storage system of claim 8, wherein the slits (DeGirolamo: Fig. 1-3; 16) are discontinuous across the wall.
In regards to Claim 8, DeGirolamo, as modified, teaches the storage system of claim 1, wherein the wall is formed from a ferromagnetic material (Jeong: [0019]).
In regards to Claim 10, DeGirolamo, as modified, teaches the storage system of claim 1, wherein the wall is formed from a sheet metal (Jeong: [0019]) or a polymeric material.
In regards to Claim 12, DeGirolamo discloses a bracket (DeGirolamo: Fig. 1-2, 4-5; 26) for supporting an item, the bracket comprising: a main body (DeGirolamo: Fig. 1-2, 4-5; 28) defining a first planar surface (DeGirolamo: Fig. 2; 30) configured to be flush with a wall and an opposite second planar surface (DeGirolamo: Fig. 2; 32) for receiving a holding member; a lip (DeGirolamo: Fig. 2, 4-5; 38) configured to be inserted into a slit of the wall; and the holding member (DeGirolamo: Fig. 1-2, 4-5; 52) attached to the second planar surface of the main body and configured to support the item.
DeGirolamo fails to disclose a magnet received within the main body and configured to attract the bracket to a ferromagnetic material. However, Jeong teaches a main body (Jeong: Fig. 4; 100) defining a first planar surface (Jeong: Annotated Fig. 4; S1) configured to be flush with a wall and an opposite second planar surface (Jeong: Annotated Fig. 4; S2) for receiving a holding member; and a magnet (Jeong: Fig. 2-4; 180) received within the main body and configured to attract the bracket to a ferromagnetic material (Jeong: Fig. 3-4; 500). [Note: See the rejection of claim 1 for motivation.]
In regards to Claim 13, DeGirolamo, as modified, teaches the bracket of claim 12, wherein the magnet (Jeong: Fig. 2-4; 180) is configured to stabilize the bracket at the wall.
In regards to Claim 14, DeGirolamo, as modified, teaches the bracket of claim 12, wherein the magnet (Jeong: Fig. 2-4; 180) is embedded within the bracket (DeGirolamo: Fig. 1-2, 4-5; 26).
In regards to Claim 15, DeGirolamo, as modified, teaches the bracket of claim 12, wherein the magnet (Jeong: Fig. 2-4; 180) is mounted to the bracket (DeGirolamo: Fig. 1-2, 4-5; 26).
In regards to Claim 16, DeGirolamo, as modified, teaches the bracket of claim 12, wherein the magnet (Jeong: Fig. 2-4; 180) is received within the main body so as to be flush with the first planar surface (DeGirolamo: Fig. 2; 30).
In regards to Claim 17, DeGirolamo, as modified, teaches the bracket of claim 16, wherein the lip (DeGirolamo: Fig. 2, 4-5; 38) is offset relative to the main body of the bracket.
In regards to Claim 18, DeGirolamo, as modified, teaches the bracket of claim 12, wherein the bracket is formed from a polymeric material (DeGirolamo: Col. 4, Ln. 23-26).
In regards to Claim 20, DeGirolamo discloses a method of attaching a bracket to a wall, the method comprising: providing the bracket (DeGirolamo: Fig. 1-2, 4-5; 26) including: a main body (DeGirolamo: Fig. 1-2, 4-5; 28) defining a first planar surface (DeGirolamo: Fig. 2; 30) configured to be flush with the wall and an opposite second planar surface (DeGirolamo: Fig. 2; 32) for receiving a holding member (DeGirolamo: Fig. 1-2, 4-5; 52); the holding member attached to the second planar surface of the main body and configured to receive the item; and a lip (DeGirolamo: Fig. 2, 4-5; 38) configured to be received by the one or more slits; inserting the lip of the bracket into a slit (DeGirolamo: Fig. 1-3; 16) on the wall (DeGirolamo: Fig. 1-3; 12); and releasing the bracket and allowing the main body of the bracket to contact the wall.
DeGirolamo fails to disclose a magnet received within the main body; wherein the main body of the bracket is configured to magnetically attract to the wall so as to anchor the bracket to the wall. However, Jeong teaches a main body (Jeong: Fig. 4; 100) defining a first planar surface (Jeong: Annotated Fig. 4; S1) configured to be flush with a wall and an opposite second planar surface (Jeong: Annotated Fig. 4; S2) for receiving a holding member; and a magnet (Jeong: Fig. 2-4; 180) received within the main body; wherein the main body of the bracket is configured to magnetically attract to a wall (Jeong: Fig. 3-4; 500) so as to anchor the bracket to the wall. [Note: See the rejection of claim 1 for motivation.]
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeGirolamo (US 5,379,976) in view of Jeong (KR 20-2016-0003161) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gessi (US 2022/0117413).
In regards to Claim 9, DeGirolamo, as modified, teaches the storage system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the wall further comprises lighting configured to illuminate the wall.
However, Gessi teaches a wall further comprising lighting configured to illuminate the wall (Gessi: [0137]).
DeGirolamo and Gessi are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. article support brackets/systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wall in DeGirolamo with the lighting from Gessi, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide proper illumination to the wall and the brackets and items connected thereto, thereby improving visibility (Gessi: [0137]).
Claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeGirolamo (US 5,379,976) in view of Jeong (KR 20-2016-0003161) as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Desilets (US 10,285,515).
In regards to Claim 11, DeGirolamo, as modified, teaches the storage system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the bracket is formed by 3D printing.
However, Desilets teaches a bracket (Desilets: Fig. 3C; 310) that is formed by 3D printing (Desilets: Col. 11, Ln. 12-22).
DeGirolamo and Desilets are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. article support brackets/systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the bracket in DeGirolamo by 3D printing as taught by Desilets, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a modern method of forming the brackets from a wide range of polymeric materials (Desilets: Col. 11, Ln. 12-22), thereby enabling the brackets to be quickly manufactured for prototyping or sale, and increasing the range of usable manufacturing materials.
Claim 19 is rejected, as set forth in the rejection of claim 11.
Annotated Figures
PNG
media_image1.png
725
577
media_image1.png
Greyscale
I: Jeong; Annotated Fig. 4
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 Taylor Morris whose telephone number is (571)272-6367. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10AM-6PM PST / 1PM-9PM 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.
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.
/Taylor Morris/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631