DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Due to applicant’s amendment filed on March 11, 2026, the claims, drawings, specification objections and the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections in the previous office action (dated 10/02/2025) are hereby withdrawn.
The status of the claim(s) as follows:
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, 12-13 and 15-17 have been amended,
Claims 2, 7, 11, 14 and 18 were previously presented, and
Claims 19 and 20 have been newly added.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Drawings
The drawings were received on March 11, 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
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 11, 19 and 20 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 11 and its dependents is/are indefinite because it is not clear whether claim 11 is drawn to the sub-combination of: an organizer system FOR use with a case (and its corresponding structure(s) – i.e. lid and base), or whether the claim is drawn to the combination of: an organizer system AND a case (and its corresponding structure(s)). This is because while some portion of the claim indicate that what is claimed is the sub-combination (see claim 11, ln. 1-2 and 10-12), other portions of the claim indicate that what is claimed is the combination (note the structural limitation(s) of claim 11, ln. 3, requiring “a lid insert installed into the lid” AND claim 11, ln. 9, requiring “the panel system is installed into an internal volume of the case by friction fit”). It is noted further in connection with this limitation that it is by now well settled that features not claimed may not be relied upon in support of patentability. In this office action, the case (and its corresponding structure(s)) is presumed not to be claimed in order for the examiner to give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation. Accordingly, all references in the claim to the case (and its corresponding structure(s)) are considered to be merely functional. On the other hand, clarification of the scope of claims are required.
As for claims 19 and 20, due to their dependencies from claim 11, they too have these deficiencies.
Examiner's note: The forgoing analysis may not be exhaustive. Applicant should carefully proofread all claims and make all necessary corrections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eley (US 7424958 B1 – art of record; hereinafter Eley).
Regarding claim 1, Eley discloses an organizer system embodiment (10; as shown in Figs. 1-12 and capable of being used for a firearm case), the organizer system comprising:
first (12) and second (36; as shown in Eley Figs. 1, 6, 8-9) selectively interlocking panels, the first and second selectively interlocking panels each having a first side and an opposing second side, a grid of apertures (20) arrayed across the first and second selectively interlocking panels each aperture extending from the first side to the second side; and
a plurality of retaining blocks (i.e. in the form of third support panel (54) AND support member(s) (60); as shown in Eley Figs. 8-12) each having a body coupled to a stud, the body being wider than the stud and the stud shaped to be selectively retained within one aperture of the grid of apertures;
wherein the plurality of retaining blocks in concert with at least one of the first and second selectively interlocking panels are arranged to contact and reduce movement of a firearm or firearm accessory (Eley Col. 4 ln. 53 – Col. 7 ln. 36).
Examiner’s note: the following limitation, “…in concert with at least one of the first and second selectively interlocking panels are arranged to contact and reduce movement of a firearm or firearm accessory…” is considered to be functional or intended-use limitation to which no patentable weight has been given by the examiner. Applicant is reminded of the following regarding functional or intended-use limitations: a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art (i.e. structure rather than function). If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP §2114
Regarding claim 2, Eley further discloses wherein each stud is dimensioned to extend partway between the first and second sides (see Eley Figs. 5a-b, 6 and 9).
Regarding claim 3, Eley further discloses wherein each body has a rectangular cross section when viewed along a longitudinal axis through the plurality of retaining blocks (see Eley Figs. 8-12).
Regarding claim 4, Eley further discloses wherein each stud is tapered along the longitudinal axis (see Eley Figs. 5a-b, 6 and 9).
Regarding claim 5, Eley further discloses wherein the plurality of retaining blocks are shaped to form friction fits within the respective apertures of the grid of apertures.
Regarding claim 6, Eley further discloses wherein each of the first and second selectively interlocking panels comprise at least one side having teeth (38) shaped to selectively interlock with teeth of an adjacent one of the first and second selectively interlocking panels (see Eley Figs. 1-4 and 6-9).
Regarding claim 7, Eley further discloses wherein top surfaces of the first and second selectively interlocking panels are configured to make a flush fit with each other, while the teeth are arranged below this flush fit (see Eley Figs. 1, 8 and 9).
Regarding claim 10, Eley further discloses wherein each aperture of the grid of apertures is formed as an opening shaped as at least one of a square (see Eley Figs. 1-12).
Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sloop (US 4733806 A – art of record; hereinafter Sloop).
Regarding claim 12, Sloop discloses a case (14; capable of holding a firearm or firearm accessory), the case comprising:
a lid (18) rotatably coupled to a base (16);
a panel system (62, 64, 68, 70 and 82; as shown in Sloop Fig. 5) including a at least a first panel (64 and 68) installed in the base, the first panel comprising an array of cutouts (70) passing through the first panel from a first side to a second side;
a plurality of mounting blocks (i.e. in the form of pylon devices (60)), each one of the plurality of mounting block includes a block body (72 and 74) and at least one stud (76; as shown in Sloop Fig. 5), wherein the at least one stud is configured to be removably insertable into at least one cutout of the array of the cutouts;
wherein when the lid is closed against the base, the first panel is configured to compress (i.e. the upper surface of the first panel will compress to a degree based on a) how tight the bolt that secures the mounting block is tighten AND b) the amount of forced applied from the lid insert onto the mounting block when the lid is in the closed position) and the plurality of mounting block are configured to reduce movement of the firearm or firearm accessory (Sloop Col. 2 Ln. 44 – Col. 6 Ln. 29 and Figs. 1-5).
Examiner’s note: the following limitation, “…when the lid is closed against the base, the first panel is configured to compress and the plurality of mounting blocks are configured to reduce movement of the firearm or firearm accessory…” is considered to be functional or intended-use limitation to which no patentable weight has been given by the examiner. Applicant is reminded of the following regarding functional or intended-use limitations: a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art (i.e. structure rather than function). If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP §2114
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eley (US 7424958 B1 – art of record; hereinafter Eley) in view of Sloop (US 4733806 A – art of record; hereinafter Sloop).
Regarding claim 8, Eley as above teaches all the structural limitations as set forth in claim 1, except for wherein the plurality of retaining blocks comprise a material configured to compress when in contact with the firearm or the firearm accessory.
Sloop is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention Eley, which is an organizer system. Sloop discloses a case (14; capable of holding a firearm or firearm accessory), the case comprising:
a lid (18) rotatably coupled to a base (16);
a panel system (62, 64, 68, 70 and 82; as shown in Sloop Fig. 5) including a at least a first panel (64 and 68) installed in the base, the first panel comprising an array of cutouts (70) passing through the first panel from a first side to a second side;
a plurality of mounting blocks (i.e. in the form of pylon devices (60)), each one of the plurality of mounting block includes a block body (72 and 74) and at least one stud (76; as shown in Sloop Fig. 5), wherein the at least one stud is configured to be removably insertable into at least one cutout of the array of the cutouts; and
the plurality of retaining blocks comprise a material (i.e. foam plastic covering) configured to compress when in contact with the firearm or the firearm accessory (Sloop Col. 4 ln. 22-32 and see Figs. 4-5).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the plurality of retaining blocks (of Eley) with similar plurality of retaining blocks with compressible material (as taught by Sloop) to improve the overall shock-absorbing capabilities of the plurality of retaining blocks (of Eley). Since, the plurality of retaining blocks of both Eley and Sloop are considered to be art-recognized equivalents at the time of the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the plurality of retaining blocks (of Sloop) for the plurality of retaining blocks (of Eley). An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. See MPEP §2143(I)(B) or §2144.06(II)
Further, it has also been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP §2144.07
Regarding claim 9, modified Eley as above further teaches a lid insert (i.e. in the form of molded elastic foam pad (84) provided within the lid of Sloop), wherein the lid insert is compressible (see Sloop Fig. 5).
Claims 13 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sloop (as applied to claim 12 above) in view of Eley (US 7424958 B1 – art of record; hereinafter Eley).
Regarding claim 13, Sloop as above teaches all the structural limitations as set forth in claim 12, except for wherein the at least one stud extends into the panel system from the first side but does not extend to the second side.
Eley is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and Sloop, which is an organizer system. Eley teaches an organizer system embodiment (10; as shown in Figs. 1-12 and capable of being used for a firearm case), the organizer system comprising:
first (12) and second (36; as shown in Eley Figs. 1, 6, 8-9) selectively interlocking panels, the panels each having a first side and an opposing second side, a grid of apertures (20) arrayed across the first and second panels each aperture extending from the first side to the second side; and
a plurality of mounting blocks (i.e. in the form of third support panel (54) AND support member(s) (60); as shown in Eley Figs. 8-12) each one of the plurality of mounting blocks including a block body coupled and at least one stud, wherein the at least one stud is configured to be removably insertable into one of the cutouts; and
wherein the at least one stud extends into the panel system from the first side but not extend to the second side (Eley Col. 4 ln. 53 – Col. 7 ln. 36).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teaching of the at least one stud extending from the first side but not the second side (as taught by Eley) onto the at least one stud (of Sloop) to ensure the panel provided in the base (of Sloop) does not have an uneven surface.
Regarding claims 15-16, modified Sloop as above further teaches wherein each block body has a rectangular cross section (see Eley Figs. 8-12) and the studs are tapered (see Eley Figs. 5a-b, 6 and 9).
Regarding claims 17-18, modified Sloop as above further teaches a second panel (36) and wherein the first panel comprises at least one side having teeth (38) shaped to selectively interlock with teeth of the second panel, and wherein the first side of the first panel and a first side of the second panel are configured to make a flush fit with each other, while the teeth of both panels extend from the second side to the flush fit (see Eley Figs. 1-4 and 6-9).
Claim 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sloop (as applied to claim 12 above) in view of Forsyth et al. (US 9048272 B2; hereinafter Forsyth).
Regarding claim 14, Sloop as above teaches all the structural limitations as set forth in claim 12, except for wherein the panel system is installed into an internal volume of the case by friction fit.
Forsyth is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and Sloop, which is an organizer system having a removable panel system. Forsyth teaches an organizer system having removable panel system (i.e. in the form of an insert panel 300), wherein the removable panel system has a plurality of cutouts (310), and wherein the removable panel system that is friction fitted into an interior cavity of a tray (i.e. in the form of a frame (200); Forsyth Col. 4 ln. 27-30 and Fig. 1).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teaching of friction fitting of panel system (as taught by Forsyth) onto the panel system (of Sloop) to allow the user to easily remove the panel system from the base of the case (of Sloop) and the resultant structure(s) will work equally well.
Claims 11, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sloop (US 4733806 A – art of record; hereinafter Sloop) and further in view of Eley (US 7424958 B1 – art of record; hereinafter Eley), Brunson et al. (US 7246704 – art of record; hereinafter Brunson) and Forsyth et al. (US 9048272 B2; hereinafter Forsyth).
Regarding claim 11, Sloop teaches an organizer system (for use with a case (14) including a base (16) and a lid (18) configured to be matingly coupled together for containing an object (I) therein), the organizer system comprising:
a lid insert (82) installed into the lid;
a panel system (62,64,68,70 and 82; as shown in Sloop Fig. 5); and
a plurality of mounting blocks (i.e. in the form of pylon devices (60)), each one of the plurality of mounting blocks including a block body (72 and 74) integrally formed with at least one stud (76; as shown in Sloop Fig. 5), wherein each of the at least one stud is configured to be removably insertable into one of the plurality of cutouts; and
wherein, when the base and the lid are coupled together, the lid insert further cooperates with the panel system and the plurality of mounting blocks to assist in preventing shifting of the firearm or firearm accessory within the case.
However, Sloop fails to teach the panel system including at least two panels that interlock together, at least one of the at least two panels including a plurality of cutouts formed therein.
Eley is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and Sloop, which is an organizer system. Eley teaches an organizer system embodiment (10; as shown in Figs. 1-12) comprising: a panel system having a first panel (12) with a plurality of cutouts (20) and a second panel (36; as shown in Eley Figs. 1, 6, 8-9) with a plurality of cutouts (20), and wherein the first panel and the second panel interlock together to form the panel system (Eley Col. 4 Ln. 53 – Col. 7 Ln. 36).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the panel system (of Sloop) with a similar panel system with interlocking panel sections or segments (as taught by Eley) to make the overall panel system modular – to better accommodated the different sized objects secured on top of the panel system.
Further, the panel system of both Sloop and Eley are considered to be art-recognized equivalents at the time of the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the panel system (of Eley) for the panel system (of Sloop). An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. See MPEP §2143(I)(B) or §2144.06(II)
Sloop further fails to teach wherein the at least one stud is configured to be retained within one of the plurality of cutouts by friction fit.
Brunson is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and Sloop, which is an organizer system. Brunson teaches an organizer system embodiment (for use with a case) comprising:
a panel system having a first panel (either 26 or 44) with a plurality of cutouts (20);
a plurality of mounting blocks (i.e. in the form of tool packages or containers (48, 50, 52 or 54)) having at least one stud (i.e. in the form of male pegs (62)), and
wherein the at least one stud is configured to be retained within one of the plurality of cutouts by friction fit (Brunson Col. 3 Ln. 14 – Col. 6 Ln. 3 and Figs. 1-7).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teaching of friction fit (as taught by Brunson) onto the at least one stud of the plurality of mounting blocks (of Sloop) to allow the user to easily remove the plurality of mounting blocks system (since the user no longer has to unscrew the stud from the panel system) and the resultant structure(s) will work equally well.
Lastly, Sloop fails to teach wherein the panel system is installed into an internal volume of the case by friction fit.
Forsyth is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and Sloop, which is an organizer system having a removable panel system. Forsyth teaches an organizer system having removable panel system (i.e. in the form of an insert panel 300), wherein the removable panel system has a plurality of cutouts (310), and wherein the removable panel system that is friction fitted into an interior cavity of a tray (i.e. in the form of a frame (200); Forsyth Col. 4 ln. 27-30 and Fig. 1).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teaching of friction fitting of panel system (as taught by Forsyth) onto the panel system (of Sloop) to allow the user to easily remove the panel system from the base of the case (of Sloop) and the resultant structure(s) will work equally well.
Regarding claim 19, modified Sloop as above further teaches wherein the at least one of the at least two panels is configured to compress (i.e. the upper surface of the first panel will compress to a degree based on a) how tight the bolt that secures the mounting block is tighten AND b) the amount of forced applied from the lid insert onto the mounting block when the lid is in the closed position).
Regarding claim 20, modified Sloop as above further teaches wherein each block body has a square or rectangular cross section (i.e. the tool packages or containers (48, 50, 52 or 54) of Brunson – see Brunson Figs. 2, 6 and 7 OR the third support panel (54) or support members (60) of Eley – see Eley Figs. 8-12)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on March 11, 2026 with respect the pending claim(s) have been fully considered but they ARE NOT persuasive for the following reason(s):
Applicant’s argument: Applicant argues that the prior structure (i.e. the modular shelf of Eley) CANNOT be considered “a retaining block”. To further support this assertion, applicant further argues that the prior art structure DOES NOT disclose or teach a body coupled to a stud (see Remarks. pgs. 11-2).
Examiner’s response: Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant assertion. Examiner notes that the figures of Eley clearly show the body coupled to the stud (as claimed, specifically see Eley Figs. 8-12).
Examiner further notes the term “a retaining block” is a very broad term and can encompassed a wide range of structure(s). Basically, an inventor considering “a retaining or mounting block” would naturally look to other references employing retaining or mounting block which may come from areas such as modular shelving, building blocks, children’s toys (i.e. Lego blocks) and so on. See MPEP §2143(B)
Applicant’s argument: Majority of applicant’s arguments presented against the prior art (either Eley or Sloop) are directed to the “configured to” limitations presented in the respective independent claims. To further support these assertion(s), applicant notes the prior art structure(s) DO NOT FUNCTION the same way as the claimed structure(s) (see Remarks pgs. 12-13).
Examiner’s response: Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s assertion(s) because it appears 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 MPEP §2145(IV)
Further, throughout the art rejections above, examiner provided various “examiner’s note” on how the “configured to” limitations is being treated; emphasis added.
Applicant’s argument: Applicant argues the respective 103 rejections are improper the combination CANNOT be combinable with each other. Even assuming arguendo, the applied prior art(s) are combinable with each other, examiner relies upon impermissible hindsight construction (see Remarks. pg. 13-16).
Examiner’s response: In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See MPEP §2145(X)(A)
Lastly, Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited documents are listed on the attached PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIJESH V. PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1878. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 6:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached on 571-270-5531. 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.
/B. V. P./
Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/CHUN HOI CHEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights