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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,006,768. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they overlap in scope and all the claimed subject matter is present in the patented claims.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-44 of U.S. Patent No. 10,219,636. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they overlap in scope and all the claimed subject matter is present in the patented claims.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,571,076. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they overlap in scope and all the claimed subject matter is present in the patented claims.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,167,801. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they overlap in scope and all the claimed subject matter is present in the patented claims.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Holmes (US 2012/0253508).
Regarding claim 1, Holmes (hereafter “D1”) discloses a merchandise display hook (embodiment of figure 14) comprising: a support structure (display apparatus 226) configured to support one or more items of merchandise thereon (products 62 hung from 102 – [0054]), wherein the support structure comprises a base (not indexed rear part having mounting hooks) configured to be to be attached to a display fixture for supporting the support structure on the display fixture (figure 14); and an anti-sweep mechanism (actuator 254, control member 230, locking mechanism 234) operably engaged with the support structure and comprising an actuator (254) configured to be actuated for dispensing the one or more items of merchandise from the support structure in a first mode (unloading function or process – [0073]), wherein the anti-sweep mechanism further comprises a loading mechanism (230, 234) for loading one or more items of merchandise onto the support structure in a second mode (loading function or process), wherein the loading mechanism (230, 234) is configured to be actuated for storing energy to be used to dispense the one or more items of merchandise from the support structure (pressing of actuator 254 stores energy in biasing member 242 of locking mechanism 234 and pushes plate 238 and when released plate will press causing rotation of 230 to remove item(s) – [0072-0074]; figure 15).
Regarding claim 2, D1 discloses wherein the actuator (254) is configured to be manually actuated for dispensing one or more items of merchandise from the support structure ([0073]).
Regarding claim 3, D1 discloses wherein the actuator (254) is configured to be actuated for dispensing a single item of merchandise at a time ([0074]).
Regarding claim 4, D1 discloses wherein the actuator (254) is configured to be linearly actuated for dispensing one or more items of merchandise from the support structure (figure 15).
Regarding claim 5, D1 discloses wherein the loading mechanism (230, 234) is configured to load a spring (242) in response to actuation thereof ([0073]).
Regarding claim 6, D1 discloses wherein the loading mechanism (plate 238 of mechanism 230 is linearly actuated – [0073]) is configured to be linearly actuated.
Regarding claims 7-9, D1 discloses wherein the anti-sweep mechanism (254, 230, 234) further comprises a time delay mechanism (use of grease as a damper mechanism hinders plate 238 movement – [0074]) configured to disable the actuator in a third mode (timed release mode) such that the one or more items of merchandise are prevented from being dispensed from the support structure in the third mode (from the time the plate moves back against the resistance of the grease until the actuator 254 is able to be actuated again).
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) 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes (US 2012/0253508).
Regarding claim 14, D1 discloses in the other embodiment of figures 1-14 a communication portion comprising a cable connection ([0055]) to a user interface. The user interface is provided for authorizing removal of merchandise ([0046-0048]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to utilize the user interface and controller components (of figures 1-14) adapted for use with the embodiment of figures 15-16 to control the anti-sweep mechanism for authorized release of the locking mechanism. As modified, a cable used for the communication can be considered a part of the anti-sweep mechanism.
Regarding claims 15-17, D1 discloses a device having all of the parts/members required by the claims as discussed per claims 1-9 above and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to perform the process steps of claims 15-17 in order to make and use the device as intended and disclosed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-13 and 18-20 are indicated as containing allowable subject matter, but are subject to a double patenting rejection. The claims being dependent upon a rejected base claim, would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if the double patenting rejections are overcome.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art of record does not disclose or suggest any combination meeting the limitations of the independent claim(s). Specifically, Holmes does not teach at least the claimed helix disposed about at least one rod, the helix extending at least partially along a length of the at least one rod, the helix configured to rotate in a dispensing direction for dispensing the one or more items of merchandise from the at least one rod in the first mode, and the prior art documents of record do not suggest a modification to meet these limitations.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See notice of references cited form PTO-892. References not applied but cited are relevant as disclosing or suggesting at least one feature in the claims or disclosure of the present application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK D HAWN whose telephone number is (571)270-5320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached on 5712728227. 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.
/PATRICK D HAWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631