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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “15” (retail shelf). It appears “150” is cut off in Fig. 13, and is not “15”. 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. 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 Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8, line 3, it appears “a channel fence” should read --the channel fence--
Appropriate correction is required.
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 19 and 20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In regards to claim 19, it is unclear how one bend of the one or more bends can form two bridges. Appropriate explanation or correction is required.
Claim 20 is rejected based on its dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 11-13 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Adams (US Pat. No. 4,209,098).
In regards to claim 1, Adams teaches a theft deterrent system capable of mounting on a retail shelf, the theft deterrent system comprising: a channel assembly (30) capable of attaching to a retail shelf (e.g.; via 14); one or more brackets (54) positioned along the channel assembly, the brackets fixed within the channel assembly when the channel assembly is in a closed position (via 62); and one or more stages (42) configured to connect to a retail product (52), each stage of the one or more stages attached to a respective bracket of the one or more brackets (i.e.; 42 is integrally attached to 54).
In regards to claim 2, Adams teaches the channel assembly comprises a lower channel (32) and an upper channel (24) that are mateable with respect to each other (i.e.; they are integrally joined via 14 to form an elongated channel therebetween).
In regards to claim 4, Adams teaches a channel fence (36) positioned between the upper channel and the lower channel.
In regards to claim 5, Adams teaches the channel fence (36) mates within a bend (56) of each bracket of the one or more brackets.
In regards to claim 6, Adams teaches the one or more brackets are lockable between the lower channel and the upper channel (via screw 62).
In regards to claim 7, Adams teaches the one or more brackets include one or more bends (56) that mate with the channel assembly.
In regards to claim 8, Adams teaches a channel fence (36) extending through the channel assembly wherein the one or more brackets mate with the channel assembly and a channel fence (via 56).
In regards to claim 11, Adams teaches each bracket of the one or more brackets includes an outwardly extending flat portion (54) connectable to a respective stage (42) and one or more bends (56) forming a bridge that extends through the channel assembly.
In regards to claim 12, Adams teaches a theft deterrent system capable of mounting on a retail shelf, the theft deterrent system comprising: a channel assembly (30) capable of attaching to a retail shelf (e.g.; via 14); one or more brackets (54) positioned along the channel assembly, the brackets slideable relative to the channel assembly but not removeable from the channel assembly when the channel assembly is in a closed position (i.e.; when the bracket is locked with 62); and one or more stages (42) configured to connect to a retail product (52), each stage of the one or more stages attached to a respective bracket of the one or more brackets (i.e.; 42 is integrally attached to 54).
In regards to claim 13, Adams teaches the channel assembly comprises a lower channel (32) and a cooperative upper channel (24).
In regards to claim 15, Adams teaches the one or more brackets are lockable between the lower channel and the upper channel (via screw 62).
In regards to claim 16, Adams teaches a channel fence (36) extending between the lower channel and the upper channel.
In regards to claim 17, Adams teaches the channel fence comprises a rod (36) having a rectangular cross-section (see rectangular shaped cross-section in Fig. 3).
In regards to claim 18, Adams teaches the one or more brackets include one or more bends (56) that mate with the channel assembly.
Claims 12, 13, 21, 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Caputo et al. (US Pat. No. 4,566,597).
In regards to claim 12, Caputo teaches a theft deterrent system for mounting on a retail shelf, the theft deterrent system comprising: a channel assembly (24) configured to attach to a retail shelf (i.e.; collectively inside cabinet enclosure 12 as shown in Fig. 1); one or more brackets (30, 30a, 30b) positioned along the channel assembly, the brackets slideable relative to the channel assembly but not removeable from the channel assembly when the channel assembly is in a closed position (i.e.; a lockable securement; Col 3, Lines 5-10); and one or more stages (20, 20a, 20b) configured to connect to a retail product (14, 16), each stage of the one or more stages attached to a respective bracket of the one or more brackets (i.e.; the stages are integrally attached to the brackets).
In regards to claim 13, Caputo teaches the channel assembly comprises a lower channel and a cooperative upper channel (i.e. the upper and lower portions of 28).
In regards to claim 21, Caputo teaches an integrated cabinet (12) formed behind the channel assembly wherein the integrated cabinet is engaged with the channel assembly and attached to the retail shelf (see cabinet and shelves in Fig. 1).
In regards to claim 24, Caputo teaches inventory of the retail product is contained on the retail shelf within the integrated cabinet (see products on shelves in Fig. 1).
In regards to claim 25, Caputo teaches the integrated cabinet comprises a lower crossbar (i.e.; a screw or nail) engageable with the channel assembly (via 40; Col 3, Lines 51-53), two side panels, a top panel, and an openable front panel (see enclosure 12 in Fig. 1).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams (US Pat. No. 4,209,098) in view of Vollmer (US Pat. No. 2,430,624).
In regards to claim 3, Adams does not teach the upper channel is fastened to the lower channel. Vollmer teaches a channel assembly with an upper channel (10) fastened to a lower channel (10) with a screw (26).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Adams’s clamping assembly such that the upper channel is fastened to the lower channel. The motivation would be for the purpose of exerting a force to provide a rigid interconnection between the component parts of the rack as taught by Vollmer (Col 2, Lines 21-28).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams (US Pat. No. 4,209,098) in view of Reynolds et al. (US Pat. No. 9,125,501 B2).
In regards to claim 9, Adams does not teach the stage further includes a retractable tether. Reynolds teaches a stage (2) with a retractable tether (20).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Adams’s stage to include a retractable tether. The motivation would be for the purpose of tethering the article to the pedestal (i.e.; platform) and/or for monitoring an attachment of the article to the pedestal as taught by Reynolds (Col 6, Lines 3-12).
In regards to claim 10, in modifying Adams, Reynolds teaches a mount (Reynolds: 4) positioned at an end of the retractable tether.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams (US Pat. No. 4,209,098) in view of Foltz (US Pat. No. 3,468,509).
In regards to claim 14, Adams does not teach the upper channel is hinged relative to the lower channel. Foltz teaches an upper channel (14) hinged relative to a lower channel (12)(Col 2, Lines 27-29).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Adams’s channel assembly such that the upper channel is hinged relative to the lower channel. The motivation would be for the purpose of providing additional clearance to maneuver the bracket within the support member (32) by pivoting the upper channel out of the way.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams (US Pat. No. 4,209,098) in view of Londrico (US Pat. No. 7,028,854 B1).
In regards to claim 19, as best understood with respect to the 112(b) rejection above, Adams does not teach the one or more bends form two bridges. Londrico teaches one or more bends (defined by 42 and 44, Fig. 3) forming two bridges (at 40 and between 44) to engage a channel assembly.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Adams’s bracket such that the one or more bends form two bridges as taught by Londrico. The motivation would be for the purpose of providing further securement within the channel assembly.
In regards to claim 20, in modifying Adams, Londrico teaches one bridge (i.e.; between the two end portions 44 in Fig. 3 of Londrico) spans at least a portion (Londrico: 27, Fig. 4) of the channel assembly and one bridge is capable of spanning a portion of the retail shelf. Note the shelf is not positively recited as part of the theft deterrent system in claim 12.
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caputo et al. (US Pat. No. 4,566,597) in view of Berg (US Pub. No. 2008/0246375 A1).
In regards to claim 22, Caputo teaches the integrated cabinet includes an openable front panel (see Fig. 1). Caputo does not teach the panel comprising one or more lockable sliding doors. Berg teaches a cabinet with a front panel comprising lockable sliding doors (28; Para. 0015).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Caputo’s front panel to comprise one or more lockable sliding doors as taught by Berg. The motivation would be for the purpose of providing tamper resistant as taught by Berg (Para. 0015).
In regards to claim 23, in modifying Caputo, Berg teaches the one or more lockable doors are transparent (Berg: Para. 0015).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the PTO-892 for additional prior art related to Applicant’s disclosed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STANTON L KRYCINSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5381. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00AM-5:00PM ET.
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 at (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 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.
/Stanton L Krycinski/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631