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 .
The following correspondence is a non-final Office Action for application # 19025285, entitled: Modular Systems and Components, filed on 01/16/2025. This correspondence is in response to applicant’s reply filed on 09/03/2026. Claims 1-25 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/03/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species XXII (drawn to Figs. 63-65) in the reply filed on 09/03/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kao (U.S. Pat. 7198158).
Regarding claim 19, Kao teaches a coupler 20 for utility modules (as seen in Figs. 3-4) comprising: a front wall (as shown in Fig. 1 below) configured to engage against a front surface of a rail 10 (also seen in Fig. 1 below), the rail 10 extending longitudinally; an upper arm (as seen in Fig. 1 below) extending from the front wall, the upper arm configured to engage against an upper surface 211 of the rail 10 that is above and extends from the front surface of the rail 10, the upper arm extending from a first end at the front wall to a second end opposite the first end; and a rib 213 extending from second end (as seen in Fig. 2), the rib 213 configured to engage with recesses 11 defined by the rail 10 to bias the front wall from sliding with respect to the rail 10.
With regards to claim 19, Kao is discussed above, and teaches the coupler. However, Kao fails to explicitly teach a plurality or ribs 213 extending from the second end of the upper arm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a plurality of ribs on the second end of the upper arm, because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations. The Examiner further notes that providing an additional rib would allow the coupler to have a more secure connection to the rail.
Regarding claim 20, Kao teaches the coupler 20, where the plurality of ribs 213 are arranged along a first axis (as seen in Fig. 2), and where the rail 10 extends along a longitudinal axis (as seen in Fig. 1), and where the first axis is parallel to the longitudinal axis. The Examiner notes that the ribs 213 extend along an axis that is parallel to the length of the rail 10.
PNG
media_image1.png
572
836
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kao in view of Williams et al. (U.S. Pat. 11827415).
Regarding claim 21, Kao is discussed above, and teaches the coupler 20. However, Kao fails to teach where the coupler 20 is supported from a first utility module. Williams teaches a first utility module 10 (see lower utility module 10 in Fig. 1) configured to detachably and rigidly couple with a second utility module 10 (see upper utility module 10 in Fig. 1) when the first utility module 10 slides in a first direction, where the first utility module 10 is also configured to detachably and rigidly couple with the second utility module 10 when the first utility module 10 slides in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, where the first utility module 10 and the second utility module 10 detachably and rigidly couple via cleats 26 extending from the first utility module 10 engaging with channels 30 defined by the second utility channel (as seen in Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the utility module of Williams with the coupler of Kao, in order to provide an improved tool suspension device that can hold more an different kinds of tools in position on the tool suspension device, as taught to be desirable by Kao (see discussion in col. 1, lines 39-42).
Regarding claim 22, Kao and Williams teach the coupler 20, where the coupler 20 is supported from a first utility module 10 configured to detachably and rigidly couple with a second utility module 10 via male couplers 26 extending from a lower surface of the first utility module 10 rotatably engaging with female couplers 30 defined by an upper surface of the second utility module 10. The Examiner notes that the modules 10 taught by Williams are stacked and connected to each other via attachment mechanisms 14.
Regarding claim 23, Kao and Williams teach the coupler 20, where the coupler 20 is supported from a first utility module 10 configured to detachably and rigidly couple with a second utility module 10 via protrusions 26 extending from a lower surface of the first utility module 10 slidably engaging with channels 30 defined by an upper surface of the second utility module 10, the channels 30 including a plurality of projections (for engaging portions 38 of the protrusions 26) retractably extending into the channels 30, the plurality of projections configured to bias the protrusions 26 from sliding out of the channels 30.
Regarding claim 24, Kao and Williams teach the coupler 20, where the coupler 20 is supported from a first utility module 10, the first utility 10 comprising a lid 22, a latch 40, and a lock, the lock actuating between a locked position and an unlocked position (as disclosed in col. 3, lines 49-52 of Williams), where the lock prevents the lid 22 from being opened and the latch 40 from disengaging from another utility module 10 when the lock is in the locked position.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kao in view of Hocine et al. (U.S. Pat. 10894314).
Regarding claim 25, Kao is discussed above, and teaches the coupler 20. However, Kao fails to teach where the coupler 20 is supported from a first utility module coupled to a transportation unit comprising an upper support and a lower support, the first utility module coupled to the upper support while a second utility module is simultaneously coupled to the lower support, the transportation unit comprising wheels to facilitate a user moving the transportation unit. Hocine teaches a first utility module 64 coupled to a transportation unit 10 comprising an upper support 18a and a lower support 18c, the first utility module 64 coupled to the upper support 18a while a second utility module 66 is simultaneously coupled to the lower support 18c, the transportation unit 10 comprising wheels (as seen in Fig. 2 below) to facilitate a user moving the transportation unit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the utility module of Hocine with the coupler of Kao, in order to provide an improved tool suspension device that can hold more an different kinds of tools in position on the tool suspension device, as taught to be desirable by Kao (see discussion in col. 1, lines 39-42).
PNG
media_image2.png
571
836
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In addition to the reference to Kao, Williams et al., and Hocine et al. above, the Examiner submits the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892). U.S. Pats. 20240208040 to Coons, 20240040722 to Roberts et al., and 11866084 to Moore et al. teach utility modules for securing tools and other objects for users.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL D MCDUFFIE whose telephone number is (571)272-3832. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8AM-4:30PM.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
/Michael McDuffie/Examiner, Art Unit 3632 29-Sep-26
/TERRELL L MCKINNON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights