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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-7) in the reply filed on 05 January 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the inventions share the same special technical features based on the claim amendments. This is found persuasive. The restriction requirement dated 05 November 2025 is hereby withdrawn.
In view of the above noted withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 3 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 2, “positioned” should read --is positioned--
Claim 3, lines 4-5, “is hidden from direct contact with the eye of the user” should read --is configured to be hidden from direct contact with an eye of a user--
Claim 8, line 9, “the eye of the user” should read --an eye of a user--
Claim 8, lines 11-12, “each of said inner grooves” should read --said inner groove--
Claim 8, line 15, “at least one elongate element” should read --the at least one elongate element--
Appropriate correction is required.
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 3, 4 and 6-10 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.
In regards to claim 2, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, line 3 recites the broad recitation “a tessellation of the space of a honeycomb type”, and the claim also recites “preferably shaped like a honeycomb” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
In regards to claim 3, it is unclear how line 2 is intended to further limit line 14 of claim 1 in relation to the inner groove. It appears Applicant is reciting redundant limitations. Appropriate explanation or correction is required.
In regards to claim 4, “said curvilinear profile” in lines 1-2; “the smaller and larger circumference” in line 3; and “the access opening” in line 4 lack proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Further regarding claim 4, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, line 5 recites the broad recitation “a proportion of between 1.30 and 2.00”, and the claim also recites “preferably between 1.40 and .190”, “more preferably between 1.50 and 1.80”, and “even more preferably between 1.60 and 1.70” which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
In regards to claim 6, “said vertical rods” in line 2, and “said horizontal rods” in lines 3-4 lack proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
In regards to claim 8, “the corresponding said conduits” in line 12 lacks proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Further regarding claim 8, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, lines 19-20 recite the broad recitation “a tessellation of the space of a honeycomb type”, and the claim also recites “preferably honeycomb-shaped” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
In regards to claim 10, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, lines 2 and 5 recite the broad recitations “a percentage of between 33% and 43%” and “a percentage of between 60 and 72%”, respectively; and the claim also recites “preferably between 35 and 41%”, “more preferably between 37 and 39%”, “even more preferably substantially equal to 38%”, “preferably between 63 and 69%”, “more preferably between 65 and 67%”, and “even more preferably substantially equal to 66%”; which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected based on its dependency.
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, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US Pat. No. 10,548,416 B2) in view of Craft et al. (US Pub. No. 2004/0159622 A1) and Ringel (US Pat. No. 11,759,993 B2).
In regards to claim 1, Xu teaches a component (120, Fig. 3) for shelving, shelves, bookcases, stairs and similar furnishing elements comprising: at least two laminar elements (300, 325) substantially parallel to each other and defining a plane of extension of the component; said at least two laminar elements covering an intermediate layer (305, 310), interposed between them, substantially coplanar to said plane; said intermediate layer having a frame (trim 305) consisting of crosspieces, for supporting at least one elongate element (310), extending along a longitudinal direction substantially normal relative to said plane and for housing induction lighting means (LEDs 315) and positioned inside the perimeter defined by said frame; wherein that at least one of said laminar elements has a window (328) defined in correspondence with an inner groove (i.e.; the portion housing 315) of said at least one elongate element, such that the light emitted by said lighting means is not stopped by the thickness of said at least one laminar element (i.e.; surface panel 325 is translucent; Col 10, Lines 15-19).
Xu does not teach the crosspieces being metal and designed to be connected to each other by snap fitting means; the elongate element made of metal material; and said metal crosspieces having ducts for the passage of cables for electrifying said lighting means.
Craft teaches a frame having crosspieces (22, 24) connected by snap fitting means (64, Para 0007). Ringel teaches a component including metal pieces, including crosspieces (332a-c) having ducts for the passage of cables (320) for electrifying lighting means (314) (Col 9, Lines 62-67, Col 10, Lines 1-3).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Xu’s component such that the crosspieces and elongate element are metal. The motivation would be for the purpose of using common materials known in the art as taught by Ringel (Col 1, Line 60).
In addition, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Xu’s component to have the crosspieces designed to be connected by snap fitting means. The motivation would be for the purpose of using modular shelving units to provide flexibility for the consumer as taught by Craft (Para 0002).
In addition, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Xu’s component such that said metal crosspieces having ducts for the passage of cables for electrifying said lighting means as taught by Craft. The motivation would be for the purpose of shielding the display components from view as taught by Xu (Col 9, Lines 55-56).
In regards to claim 5, modified Xu teaches said metal crosspieces, constituting the frame (Xu: 305), comprise at least a pair of vertical rods and a pair of horizontal rods which are mutually normal (i.e.; the trim 305 is comprised of crosspieces forming a rectangle in Fig. 3 of Xu).
In regards to claim 6, in modifying Xu, Craft teaches the snap fitting means (Craft: 64) comprise at least one male element (Craft: 72) protruding from at least one of said vertical rods and designed to be engaged with a female element (Craft: 70) defined at the respective one of said horizontal rods.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is 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. Claim 8-10 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 3, 4 and 7 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record is discussed with respect to the claims above. The prior art or record does not anticipate or make obvious a component comprising the combination of structural and functional limitations of Applicant’s claimed invention, and does not anticipate or make obvious a process with steps consisting of those of Applicant’s claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the PTO-892 for additional prior art related to Applicant’s disclosed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STANTON L KRYCINSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5381. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00AM-5:00PM ET.
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.
/Stanton L Krycinski/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights