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 .
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 19-24 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanford (US Publication no. 20150285286) in view of Chelchowski et al (US Patent no. 20050084327).
Regarding claim 19, Sanford discloses a support caddy comprising: a support rod (40, figure 7); a first connector (54, figure 6) having a body (56) and a rotational lock (68, figures 6-7) to secure the first connector along the support rod, the support rod extending through the body and the rotational lock and a first product holder (34, figures 1-3) associated with the first connector.
However, Sanford does not disclose the rotational lock includes a first portion in the body and a second portion protruding from the body, the second portion rotatable in a first direction to secure the first connector to a position along the support rod and rotatable in a second direction to permit the first connector to be moved axially along the support rod.
Chelchowski discloses a connector comprising: a body (18) including an opening to receive a support rod (34) therethrough; a wedge (12a); a lock (14) including an opening (40) to receive the support rod therethrough and at least a portion of the wedge (12a), the lock including a first portion (60, figure 3) sized to be inserted within the body (18) and a second portion (uppermost annular portion of 14) that protrudes from the body when the first portion (60) is inserted into the body (18, figure 3), wherein the lock (14) rotatably attaches to the body such that rotation of the lock causes the lock to apply pressure to the wedge (12a) to lock the body to the support rod.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to have modify the rotational locking arrangement of Sanford such that the rotational lock includes a first portion in the body and a second portion protruding from the body, the second portion rotatable in a first direction to secure the first connector to a position along the support rod and rotatable in a second direction to permit the first connector to be moved axially along the support rod as taught to be desirable by Chelchowski for positive rotational locking interengagement.
Regarding claim 20, Sanford and Chelchowski combined discloses the support caddy of claim 19 wherein Chelchowski discloses the rotational lock comprises a wedge (12a) between the body (18) and the support rod, the rotational lock (14) rotatable relative to the body to force the wedge (12a) against the support rod and the body to lock the body to the support rod.
Regarding claim 21, Sanford and Chelchowski combined discloses the support caddy of claim 19 wherein Sanford discloses the first connector includes a supporting portion (61, 62, figures 6 and 7) with a recess (62) to receive a portion of the first product holder (38).
Regarding claim 22, Sanford and Chelchowski combined discloses the support caddy of claim 19 wherein Sanford discloses the product holder (38) extends from the first connector.
Regarding claim 23, Sanford and Chelchowski combined discloses the support caddy of claim 20 wherein Sanford discloses the support rod (40) extends through the wedge (80’).
Regarding claim 24, Sanford and Chelchowski combined discloses the support caddy of claim 19 comprising Sanford discloses a second connector (Sanford discloses plurality of connectors 50 can be on the rod to support multiple shelves 30) having a rotational lock (68, figures 6-7) to secure the second connector along the support rod, and a second product holder (38) associated with the second connector.
Regarding claim 27, Sanford and Chelchowski combined discloses support caddy of claim 19 wherein the product holder is a basket (shelf 30 with perimeter edges constitutes a basket, figure 2).
Claims 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanford (US Publication no. 20150285286) in view of Chelchowski as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Trautlein et al (US Patent no. 4390099).
Sanford and Chelchowski combined discloses all the claimed features of applicant’s invention. Additionally, Sanford discloses a support caddy comprising: a support caddy comprising: a first/main support rod (40, figure 7). However, Sanford does not disclose the support rod includes a first/main support rod adjustably connected to a secondary support rod or a lock securing the main support rod to the secondary support rod. Trautlein et al (US Patent no. 4390099) discloses a support caddy comprising a support rod (14) which includes a first support rod (26, figure 9) adjustably connected to a second support rod (20); wherein a lock (32, figure 9) secures the first support rod (26, figure 9) and the second support rod (20) to a desired combined length. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to have modify the support rod of Sanford and Chelchowski combined such that the support rod includes a first support rod adjustably connected to a second support rod and a lock secures the first support rod and the second support rod for achieving a desired combined length as taught to be desirable by Trautlein.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanford (US Publication no. 20150285286) in view of Chelchowski as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Yankello et al (US Patent no. 7658154). Sanford and Chelchowski combined discloses all the claimed features of applicant’s invention except for wherein the support rod includes at least one adjustable end cap. Yankello discloses a support caddy comprising support rod (4, figures 10 and 12) with adjustable end cap (52, figure 12) such that “ caps 52 may be screwed onto threads 20 above the top shelf, as shown in FIG. 12, to complete the shelving unit. “( column 5, lines 6-8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to have modify the caddy of Sanford and Chelchowski combined such that the support rod is provided with an adjustable end cap for a complete and finished appearance as taught to be desirable by Yankello.
Claims 29-38 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claims 19-24 and 17 Sanford in view of Chelchowski combination, applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have any reason or motivation to modify Sanford’s connector to include Chelchowski’s hooked projection 46. Examiner disagrees. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, to modify Sanford’s rotational lock arrangement for the rotational lock arrangement of Chelchowski would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art. Such modification involves a mere substitution of one type of rotational lock having a wedge element for another well-known type of rotational lock with also a wedge element. Rejections stand.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Ko (Korie) H Chan whose telephone number is (571)272-6816. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday -Friday, 8:00 - 5:00 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jonathan Liu can be reached on 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 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Ko H Chan/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Khc
Prosecution Insights