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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 and 12-21 have been considered but are moot because upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is set forth below.
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 1-10 and 12-21 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.
Claims 1, 4 and 13 each recite “each side bar connected to each bracket” - it is unclear how each side bar is connected to each bracket as only one side bar is connected to a respective one of the brackets (i.e. a 1:1 connection), not each bracket. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites “in the bracket” and “in the side bar” - these limitations lack antecedent basis because it is unclear which bracket “the” bracket refers to and which side bar “the” refers to. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 recites “an aperture in each bracket aligned with a channel in each side bar…” - it is unclear how an aperture in each bracket is aligned with a channel in each side bar since only one respective bracket is connected/aligned with a respective side bar (i.e. a 1:1 connection). Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 18 recites “connecting a corresponding pair of side bars to each bracket” - it is unclear how each side bar is connected to each bracket as only one side bar is connected to a respective one of the brackets (i.e. a 1:1 connection), not each bracket. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 recites “each side bar connected to each bracket” line 1 of the claim. It is unclear how each side bar is connected to each bracket as only one side bar is connected to a respective one of the brackets (i.e. a 1:1 connection), not each bracket. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 18 and 21 recite “the bracket” the last line of the claim – this limitation lacks antecedent basis because it is unclear which bracket “the” bracket refers to. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 18 and 21 recite “the side bar” in the last line of the claim – this limitation lacks antecedent basis because it is unclear which side bar “the” side bar refers to. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "The anti-sweep bar of claim 18" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 5 (as best understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Csak (US 8662320). Csak discloses an anti-sweep bar for mounting relative to a shelf fixture, the anti-sweep bar comprising: a pair of brackets (60) configured to attach to the shelf fixture; a corresponding pair of side bars (36), each side bar connected to each bracket and extending outwardly from the shelf fixture; and a crossbar (34) extending between the pair of side bars, the crossbar configured to block at least a portion of a shelf on the shelf fixture in a closed position and further configured to move into an open position permitting access to the shelf, wherein the crossbar is extendable from the pair of side bars (col. 4, lines 34-40).
In regards to claim 3, the crossbar pivots into the open position (col. 4, lines 13-20).
With regards to claim 5, the side bards pivot relative to the pair of brackets (col. 4, lines 13-20).
Claim(s) 2, 18 and 20-21 (as best understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Saathoff (US 5287972). Regarding claim 18, Saathoff discloses a method of protecting a store shelf from a sweep of products from the shelf, the method comprising: mounting an anti-sweep bar relative to a shelf fixture with a pair of brackets (96, 97 or 36, 40) configured to attach to the shelf fixture; connecting a corresponding pair of side bars (96, 97 or 36, 40) to each bracket that extend outwardly from the shelf fixture; extending a crossbar (84) between the pair of side bars to block at least a portion of a shelf on the shelf fixture in a closed position; moving the crossbar from the closed position to an open position permitting free access to the shelf (figures 3-4); and locking the crossbar into the closed position or the open position with a locking aperture (112 or 114) positioned in the bracket and a channel (tube of 96, 97 or 114 or 52, 56) in the side bar.
Regarding claim 20, the crossbar slides to move between the closed position and the open position (figures 3-4).
Regarding claim 21, Saathoff discloses an anti-sweep bar for mounting relative to a shelf fixture, the anti-sweep bar comprising: a pair of brackets (96, 97 or 36, 40) configured to attach to the shelf fixture; a corresponding pair of side bars (96, 97 or 36, 40), each side bar connected to each bracket and extending outwardly from the shelf fixture; a crossbar (84) extending between the pair of side bars, the crossbar configured to block at least a portion of a shelf on the shelf fixture in a closed position and further configured to move into an open position permitting access to the shelf; and a lock (e.g. 120) to fix the crossbar into the closed position or the open position, wherein the lock comprises a locking aperture (112 or 114) positioned in the bracket and a channel (tube of 96 or 114 or 52) in the side bar.
With regards to claim 2, the crossbar is extendable from the pair of side bars (figure 5).
Claim(s) 18-21 (as best understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Baptiste (US 9341001). Regarding claim 18, Baptiste discloses a method of protecting a store shelf from a sweep of products from the shelf, the method comprising: mounting an anti-sweep bar relative to a shelf fixture with a pair of brackets (35) configured to attach to the shelf fixture; connecting a corresponding pair of side bars (23 and/or 44 and/or 48) to each bracket that extend outwardly from the shelf fixture; extending a crossbar (16) between the pair of side bars to block at least a portion of a shelf on the shelf fixture in a closed position; moving the crossbar from the closed position to an open position permitting free access to the shelf (figures 8-9); and locking the crossbar into the closed position or the open position with a locking aperture (in 35) positioned in the bracket and a channel (47) in the side bar.
With regards to claim 19, the crossbar is pivoted to move between the closed position and the open position (figures 8-9).
Regarding claim 20, the crossbar slides to move between the closed position and the open position (figures 8-9).
Regarding claim 21, Baptiste discloses an anti-sweep bar for mounting relative to a shelf fixture, the anti-sweep bar comprising: a pair of brackets (35) configured to attach to the shelf fixture; a corresponding pair of side bars (23 and/or 44 and/or 48), each side bar connected to each bracket and extending outwardly from the shelf fixture; a crossbar (16) extending between the pair of side bars, the crossbar configured to block at least a portion of a shelf on the shelf fixture in a closed position and further configured to move into an open position permitting access to the shelf; and a lock (col. 8, lines 23-47) to fix the crossbar into the closed position or the open position, wherein the lock comprises a locking aperture (in 35) positioned in the bracket and a channel (47) in the side bar.
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(s) 6, 9 and 12 (as best understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Csak (US 8662320). Regarding claims 6 and 12, Csak is silent to the details of the connection between the brackets and side bars. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use utilize apertures and channels (e.g. an aperture in each bracket aligned with a channel in each side bar), and a shoulder bolt extending therethrough, since such a connection is known to be notoriously old, thereby creating ease in assembly, economy and manufacture. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the invention to Csak as specified in claim 6 and 12.
With regards to claim 9, since the interaction of warning device (20) and the crossbar (34) activate an “alarm”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, that this interaction could define the claimed “lock”, since no actual structure is being claimed, and thus creating protection to the products held therein.
Claim(s) 7-10 (as best understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Csak (US 8662320) in view of Baptiste et al. (US 9341001). Csak teaches the invention of claim 1. However, Csak does not teach wherein the crossbar slides nor a lock to fix the crossbar. Baptiste teaches an anti-sweep bar, wherein the crossbar (16) slides downwardly into the open position (figures 8-9); and further comprising a lock (col. 8, lines 23-47) to fix the crossbar, wherein the lock comprises a locking aperture (aperture in 35) positioned in the bracket (35) and a channel (47) in the side bar (23). Csak and Baptiste are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. inventory control apparatuses. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to modify the invention to Csak as taught by Baptiste. The motivation would have been to provide a more structurally complete theft-deterrent system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the invention to Csak as specified in claims 7-10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-8227. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thurs, 6-6.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. 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.
/JONATHAN LIU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights