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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In the amendment dated 04/20/2026, the following has occurred: Claims 1, 12, 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 claims 1-20 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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10, 12-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Phillips, Sr. et al. (US 2009/0266951).
In regards to Claim 1, Phillips discloses a storage system comprising: a wall (Phillips: Fig. 3; 12) comprising one or more slits (Phillips: Fig. 3; 62, 70); a bracket (Phillips: Fig. 3; 14) configured to support an item, the bracket comprising: a main body (Phillips: Fig. 3; 24) defining a first planar surface (Phillips: Annotated Fig. 3; S1) configured to be flush with the wall and an opposite second planar surface (Phillips: Annotated Fig. 3; S2) for receiving a holding member (Phillips: Fig. 3; 20); a magnet (Phillips: Fig. 3; 26) received and secured within an opening of the main body without being directly attached to the holding member; the holding member attached to the second planar surface of the main body and configured to receive the item; and a lip (Phillips: Fig. 3; 72) configured to be received by the one or more slits, wherein the magnet is configured to be attracted to the wall (Phillips: [0020]).
In regards to Claim 2, Phillips discloses the storage system of claim 1, wherein the magnet (Phillips: Fig. 3; 26) is positioned adjacent to the wall and is configured to stabilize the bracket (Phillips: Fig. 3; 14) at the wall.
In regards to Claim 3, Phillips discloses the storage system of claim 1, wherein the magnet (Phillips: Fig. 3; 26) is mounted to the bracket (Phillips: Fig. 3; 14).
In regards to Claim 4, Phillips discloses the storage system of claim 1, wherein the magnet (Phillips: Fig. 3; 26) is received within the main body (Phillips: Fig. 3; 24) so as to be flush with the first planar surface (Phillips: Annotated Fig. 3; S1).
In regards to Claim 6, Phillips discloses the storage system of claim 1, wherein the wall (Phillips: Fig. 3; 12) comprises a plurality of the slits (Phillips: Fig. 3; 62, 70) extending transversely across the wall.
In regards to Claim 8, Phillips discloses the storage system of claim 1, wherein the wall is formed from a ferromagnetic material (Phillips: [0020]).
In regards to Claim 10, Phillips discloses the storage system of claim 1, wherein the wall is formed from a sheet metal (Phillips: [0020]) or a polymeric material.
In regards to Claim 12, Phillips discloses a bracket for supporting an item, the bracket (Phillips: Fig. 3; 14) comprising: a main body (Phillips: Fig. 3; 24) defining a first planar surface (Phillips: Annotated Fig. 3; S1) configured to be flush with a wall and an opposite second planar surface (Phillips: Annotated Fig. 3; S2) for receiving a holding member (Phillips: Fig. 3; 20); a magnet (Phillips: Fig. 3; 26) received and secured within an opening of the main body without being directly attached to the holding member, and configured to attract the bracket to a ferromagnetic material (Phillips: [0020]); a lip (Phillips: Fig. 3; 72) configured to be inserted into a slit of the wall; and the holding member attached to the second planar surface of the main body and configured to support the item.
In regards to Claim 13, Phillips discloses the bracket of claim 12, wherein the magnet (Phillips: Fig. 3; 26) is configured to stabilize the bracket (Phillips: Fig. 3; 14) at the wall.
In regards to Claim 14, Phillips discloses the bracket of claim 12, wherein the magnet (Phillips: Fig. 3; 26) is embedded within the bracket (Phillips: Fig. 3; 14).
In regards to Claim 15, Phillips discloses the bracket of claim 12, wherein the magnet (Phillips: Fig. 3; 26) is mounted to the bracket (Phillips: Fig. 3; 14).
In regards to Claim 16, Phillips discloses the bracket of claim 12, wherein the magnet (Phillips: Fig. 3; 26) is received within the main body so as to be flush with the first planar surface (Phillips: Annotated Fig. 3; S1).
In regards to Claim 18, Phillips discloses the bracket of claim 12, wherein the bracket is formed from a polymeric material (Phillips: [0021]).
In regards to Claim 20, Phillips discloses a method of attaching a bracket (Phillips: Fig. 3; 14) to a wall (Phillips: Fig. 3; 12), the method comprising: providing the bracket including: a main body (Phillips: Fig. 3; 24) defining a first planar surface (Phillips: Annotated Fig. 3; S1) configured to be flush with the wall and an opposite second planar surface for receiving a holding member (Phillips: Fig. 3; 20); a magnet (Phillips: Fig. 3; 26) received and secured within an opening of the main body without being directly attached to the holding member; the holding member attached to the second planar surface of the main body and configured to receive the item; and a lip (Phillips: Fig. 3; 72) configured to be received by the one or more slits; inserting the lip of the bracket into a slit on the wall; and releasing the bracket and allowing the main body of the bracket to contact the wall, wherein the main body of the bracket is configured to magnetically attract to the wall so as to anchor the bracket to the wall (Phillips: [0020], [0026]).
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips, Sr. et al. (US 2009/0266951) in view of Gessi (US 2022/0117413).
In regards to Claim 9, Phillips, 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]).
Phillips 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 Phillips 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 Phillips, Sr. et al. (US 2009/0266951) in view of Desilets (US 10,285,515).
In regards to Claim 11, Phillips, 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).
Phillips 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 Phillips 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.
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 Phillips, Sr. et al. (US 2009/0266951).
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 and secured within an opening of the main body without being directly attached to the holding member; wherein the magnet is configured to be attracted to the wall. However, Phillips teaches a bracket (Phillips: Fig. 3; 14) comprising: a main body (Phillips: Fig. 3; 24) defining a first planar surface (Phillips: Annotated Fig. 3; S1) configured to be flush with a wall and an opposite second planar surface (Phillips: Annotated Fig. 3; S2) for receiving a holding member (Phillips: Fig. 3; 20); a magnet (Phillips: Fig. 3; 26) received and secured within an opening (Phillips: Annotated Fig. 3; O) of the main body without being directly attached to the holding member; wherein the magnet is configured to be attracted to a wall (Phillips: [0020]).
DeGirolamo and Phillips 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 such that the brackets have a recessed magnet and the wall is formed from a ferromagnetic material from Phillips, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a means of stabilizing the lower end of the bracket that is simpler to use than a peg and hole structure without removing the physical connection afforded by the lip of the bracket, thereby providing the convenience of a magnetic connection and the resistance to unwanted vertical movement of the lip (Phillips: [0007]-[0009], [0012]).
In regards to Claim 2, DeGirolamo, as modified, teaches the storage system of claim 1, wherein the magnet (Phillips Fig. 3; 26) 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 (Phillips Fig. 3; 26) is mounted to the bracket.
In regards to Claim 4, DeGirolamo, as modified, teaches the storage system of claim 1, wherein the magnet (Phillips Fig. 3; 26) 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 (Phillips: [0020]).
In regards to Claim 10, DeGirolamo, as modified, teaches the storage system of claim 1, wherein the wall is formed from a sheet metal (Phillips: [0020]) 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 the bracket comprising: a magnet received and secured within an opening of the main body without being directly attached to the holding member; and configured to attract the bracket to a ferromagnetic material. However, Phillips teaches a bracket (Phillips: Fig. 3; 14) comprising: a main body (Phillips: Fig. 3; 24) defining a first planar surface(Phillips: Annotated Fig. 3; S1) configured to be flush with a wall and an opposite second planar surface (Phillips: Annotated Fig. 3; S2) for receiving a holding member (Phillips: Fig. 3; 20); a magnet (Phillips: Fig. 3; 26) received and secured within an opening (Phillips: Annotated Fig. 3; O) of the main body without being directly attached to the holding member; and configured to attract the bracket to a ferromagnetic material (Phillips: [0020]). [Note: See the rejection of claim 1 for motivation and/or rationale.]
In regards to Claim 13, DeGirolamo, as modified, teaches the bracket of claim 12, wherein the magnet (Phillips Fig. 3; 26) 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 (Phillips Fig. 3; 26) 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 (Phillips Fig. 3; 26) 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 (Phillips Fig. 3; 26) 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 the bracket comprising: a magnet received and secured within an opening of the main body without being directly attached to the holding member; 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, Phillips teaches a bracket (Phillips: Fig. 3; 14) comprising: a main body (Phillips: Fig. 3; 24) defining a first planar surface(Phillips: Annotated Fig. 3; S1) configured to be flush with a wall and an opposite second planar surface (Phillips: Annotated Fig. 3; S2) for receiving a holding member (Phillips: Fig. 3; 20); a magnet (Phillips: Fig. 3; 26) received and secured within an opening (Phillips: Annotated Fig. 3; O) of the main body without being directly attached to the holding member; wherein the main body of the bracket is configured to magnetically attract to the wall so as to anchor the bracket to the wall (Phillips: [0020]). [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 Phillips, Sr. et al. (US 2009/0266951) 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 Phillips, Sr. et al. (US 2009/0266951) 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
716
618
media_image1.png
Greyscale
I: Phillips; Fig. 3
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights