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 .
Priority
This application repeats a substantial portion of prior Application No. 16/671,792, filed 1 November 2019, and adds disclosure not presented in the prior application, i.e. the “door mounted substantially above the support structure and extending at least below the rail, wherein the door is movable between a first position obstructing access to the support structure and a second position allowing access to the support structure” in claim 1, “the door mounted substantially above the support structure and extending at least below the rail” in claim 9, and “the barrier mounted substantially above the support structure and extending at least below the rail, wherein the barrier is movable between a first position obstructing access to the support structure and a second position allowing access to the support structure” in claim 17. Because this application names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application, it may constitute a continuation-in-part of the prior application, instead of a continuation and therefore may only receive the benefit of the 10 March 2021 filing date of Application No. 17/197,613 where these features were first presented. Examiner has searched through the parent applications to find disclosure for the above features but has failed to find support. Examiner can only assume that Applicant found it inherent that if you put the support structure of Fig. 27 inside the box-shelf of Figs. 21A and 21B, that the door/barrier (item 2124) would disclose the above features. Applicant’s clarification in the matter would be appreciated.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “door mounted substantially above the support structure and extending at least below the rail, wherein the door is movable between a first position obstructing access to the support structure and a second position allowing access to the support structure” in claim 1, “the door mounted substantially above the support structure and extending at least below the rail” in claim 9, and “the barrier mounted substantially above the support structure and extending at least below the rail, wherein the barrier is movable between a first position obstructing access to the support structure and a second position allowing access to the support structure” in claim 17 must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 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. The term “substantially” in claims 1, 9 and 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claims 2-8 and 10-16 and 18-20 depend from one of rejected claim 1, 9 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and are therefore also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0000869 A1 to Hardy (“Hardy”) in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0141240 A1 to Valiulis et al. (“Valiulis”).
As per claims 1, 9 and 17, the claimed subject matter that is met by Hardy includes:
A display management system comprising:
a support structure (Hardy: ¶ 0192 and Fig. 34, 3412);
a door configured to mount to a shelf, the door mounted substantially above the support structure, wherein the door is movable between a first position obstructing access to the support structure and a second position allowing access to the support structure (Hardy: ¶¶ 0147-0155, 0178 and 0191-0198 and Figs. 7-11 and 34);
a sensor device configured to detect movement of the door (Hardy: ¶¶ 0141 and 0167-0169);
a transmitter for emitting a wireless signal regarding movement of the door (Hardy: ¶¶ 0165 and 0171); and
a processing device configured to receive the wireless signal sent from the transmitter and provide a notification upon receiving the wireless signal from the transmitter (Hardy: ¶¶ 0166 and 0171)
Hardy fails to specifically teach a support structure having a rail configured to support one or more hanging products that are added to, and removed from, a first end of the rail and the door mounted substantially above the support structure and extending at least below the rail. The Examiner provides Valiulis to teach and disclose this claimed feature.
The claimed subject matter that is met by Valiulis includes:
A display management system comprising (Valiulis: Fig. 1):
a support structure having a rail configured to support one or more hanging products that are added to, and removed from, a first end of the rail (Valiulis: ¶¶ 0038-0044 and Fig. 2);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary still in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the support structure of Valiulis inside the box-shelf as taught by Hardy, instead of the pusher (Hardy: ¶ 0192), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Further, the support structure of Valiulis being placed within the box-shelf of Hardy would have yielded the predictable result of “the door mounted substantially above the support structure and extending at least below the rail” as disclosed in the claims.
As per claims 2, 11 and 18, the claimed subject matter that is met by Hardy and Valiulis includes:
wherein the processing device is configured to provide the notification upon receiving the wireless signal indicating a deviation from a preset rate of movement of the door has occurred (Hardy: ¶ 0141).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Hardy and Valiulis are discussed in the rejection of claims 1, 9 and 17, and are incorporated herein.
As per claims 3, 12 and 19, the claimed subject matter that is met by Hardy and Valiulis includes:
wherein the processing device is configured to provide the notification upon receiving the wireless signal indicating a preset number of products have been removed from the rail (Hardy: ¶ 0007).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Hardy and Valiulis are discussed in the rejection of claims 1, 9 and 17, and are incorporated herein.
As per claims 4 and 13, the claimed subject matter that is met by Hardy and Valiulis includes:
wherein the support structure is configured to be removably coupled to a surface at the first end (Valiulis: ¶¶ 0038-0044 and Fig. 2).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Hardy and Valiulis are discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 9, and are incorporated herein.
As per claims 5 and 14, the claimed subject matter that is met by Hardy and Valiulis includes:
wherein the door comprises a display plate having a front surface configured to receive at least one display label (Hardy: ¶¶ 0126, 0218 and 0235 “the door 1020, and specifically the front of the door 1020, is made of a clear or transparent material that allows for the product to be viewed through the door 1020. Additionally, the door 1020 may enable advertisements or marketing materials to be placed on the front of the door 1020. Additionally, the base 1012 can include a display area for advertising or marketing material as well as product information such as product pricing information. Because the display area can include product information, merchandise system 1010 can be, as discussed above, stacked on top of another merchandise system 1010 without the use of shelves”).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Hardy and Valiulis are discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 9, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 6, the claimed subject matter that is met by Hardy and Valiulis includes:
wherein the notification comprises an audible notification (Hardy: ¶ 0165).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Hardy and Valiulis are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 7, the claimed subject matter that is met by Hardy and Valiulis includes:
wherein the notification comprises a visual notification (Hardy: ¶ 0165).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Hardy and Valiulis are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
As per claims 8 and 16, the claimed subject matter that is met by Hardy and Valiulis includes:
further comprising a remote processing device configured to receive the signal sent from the transmitter and provide a notification upon receiving the signal from the transmitter (Hardy: ¶¶ 0165, 0166 and 0171).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Hardy and Valiulis are discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 9, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 10, the claimed subject matter that is met by Hardy and Valiulis includes:
wherein the notification device is configured to provide the notification when the door has been held open for a preset time (Hardy: ¶ 0169 and Valiulis: ¶ 0064 and Fig. 10).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Hardy and Valiulis are discussed in the rejection of claim 9, and are incorporated herein.
As per claims 15 and 20, the claimed subject matter that is met by Hardy and Valiulis includes:
wherein the notification comprises an audible notification or a visual notification (Hardy: ¶ 0165).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Hardy and Valiulis are discussed in the rejection of claims 9 and 17, and are incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hunter Wilder whose telephone number is (571)270-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached on (571)272-6790. 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.
/A. Hunter Wilder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights