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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21 and 25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 10,405,651 B1 in view of Donaldson (US Pat. No. 727,107). Claims 28, 29, and 31-37 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 10,405,651 B1 in view of Donaldson (US Pat. No. 727,107). Claim 40 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 14-16 of U.S. Patent No. 10,405,651 B1 in view of Donaldson (US Pat. No. 727,107).
Donaldson teaches a first plate member (the rear vertical plate in Fig. 4) coupled to a vertical engaging component (5); and a second plate member (4 in Fig. 3) coupled to the first plate member and forming an acute angle with the first plate member (claim 21); an angled shelf member (4) forming an acute angle with respect to a vertical engaging component (5) (claim 28); the angled shelf member (4) is a first portion of a frame bent such that the first portion forms an acute angle with a second portion of the frame and the second portion of the frame is coupled to the vertical engaging member (5) (claim 29); and a shelf component having a frame (4) bent such that a first portion (the vertical portion in Fig. 4) is parallel to a vertical engaging component (5) and a second portion (at 4 in Fig. 3) forming an acute angle with the first portion (claim 40). 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 the patent to comprise the limitations as recited above. The motivation would be for the purpose of providing bins for holding small hardware as taught by Donaldson (Page 1, Lines 8-20).
Claims 38-39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5 and 14-16 of U.S. Patent No. 10,405,651 B1 because the subject matter of claims 38-39 of the instant application are fully encompassed by the subject matter of the patent by broadening the subject matter of the claims.
Claims 21, 25-29, 31-37 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 10,869,551 B2 in view of Donaldson (US Pat. No. 727,107). Claim 40 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3, 4, 11 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 10,869,551 B2 in view of Donaldson (US Pat. No. 727,107).
Donaldson teaches a first plate member (the rear vertical plate in Fig. 4) coupled to a vertical engaging component (5); and a second plate member (4 in Fig. 3) coupled to the first plate member and forming an acute angle with the first plate member (claim 21); an angled shelf member (4) forming an acute angle with respect to a vertical engaging component (5) (claim 28); the angled shelf member (4) is a first portion of a frame bent such that the first portion forms an acute angle with a second portion of the frame and the second portion of the frame is coupled to the vertical engaging member (5) (claim 29); and a shelf component having a frame (4) bent such that a first portion (the vertical portion in Fig. 4) is parallel to a vertical engaging component (5) and a second portion (at 4 in Fig. 3) forming an acute angle with the first portion (claim 40). 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 the patent to comprise the limitations as recited above. The motivation would be for the purpose of providing bins for holding small hardware as taught by Donaldson (Page 1, Lines 8-20).
Claims 38 and 39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3, 4, 11 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 10,869,551 B2 because the subject matter of claims 38-39 of the instant application are fully encompassed by the subject matter of the patent by broadening the subject matter of the claims.
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.
Claim 23 is 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 23, the claim recites “a second rectangular frame”. However, a first rectangular frame is not recited. Therefore, it is unclear how many rectangular frames are intended to be claimed. It appears claim 23 should be dependent on claim 22. Appropriate correction is required.
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 28, 29 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conti (GB 2,028,108 A) in view of Buege (US Pub. No. 2011/0073553 A1).
In regards to claim 28, Conti teaches a shelving kit comprising: a rectangular support (16) having an upper portion, a lower portion, a first side, a second side, and a longitudinal axis, a first longitudinal groove (defined by 32, 34, Figs. 5 and 6) defined within the first side of the rectangular support, a second longitudinal groove (defined by 32, 34) defined within the second side of the rectangular support; a plurality of shelving units (14) wherein each shelving unit comprises: a vertical engaging component (48, 56) sized to slidingly engage and fit within either the first longitudinal groove or the second longitudinal groove; and an angled shelf member (54, Fig. 8) forming an acute angle with respect to the vertical engaging component.
Conti does not teach a base rotatably attachable to the lower portion of the rectangular support. Buege teaches a base (110) rotatably attachable to the lower portion of a support (120)(Para. 0018).
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 Conti’s shelving to include a base rotatably attachable to the lower portion of the rectangular support. The motivation would be for the purpose of supporting the elements of the display (i.e.; shelving) and displayed items contained therein as taught by Buege (Para. 0017).
In regards to claim 29, modified Conti teaches the angled shelf member is a first portion (Conti: 52, Fig. 8) of a frame bent such that the first portion forms an acute angle with a second portion (Conti: 56) of the frame and the second portion of the frame is coupled to the vertical engaging member (Conti: 48).
In regards to claim 34, modified Conti teaches the first longitudinal groove is laterally offset from the second longitudinal groove (i.e.; the grooves are laterally spaced).
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conti (GB 2,028,108 A) and Buege (US Pub. No. 2011/0073553 A1), and in further view of Talbot (US Pat. No. 5,799,787).
In regards to claim 35, Conti, modified by Buege, does not teach a handle assembly configured to be removably coupled to the upper portion of the longitudinal support, the handle assembly comprising a handle having a hinge element to allow the handle to rotate around a lateral axis through an angular rotation path of approximately 180 degrees.
Talbot teaches a handle assembly (86) configured to be removably coupled to the upper end of a longitudinal support (50), the handle assembly comprising a handle having a hinge element (88) to allow the handle to rotate around a lateral axis through an angular rotation path of approximately 180 degrees (Col 6, Lines 3-14).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to further modify Conti’s kit to include a handle assembly configured to be removably coupled to the upper portion of the longitudinal support, the handle assembly comprising a handle having a hinge element to allow the handle to rotate around a lateral axis through an angular rotation path of approximately 180 degrees. The motivation would be for the purpose of aiding the user by allowing the user to grasp the stand as suggested by Talbot (Col 6, Lines 10-14).
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conti (GB 2,028,108 A) and Buege (US Pub. No. 2011/0073553 A1), and in further view of Clarke (US Pat. No. 5,927,731).
In regards to claim 35, Conti, modified by Buege, does not teach the base is coupled to a plurality of retractable rollers. Clarke teaches a base coupled to a plurality of retractable rollers (23A-D).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to further modify Conti’s kit to such that the base is coupled to a plurality of retractable rollers. The motivation would be for the purpose of allowing the frame (i.e.; base) to roll over a surface on the wheels and for lowering the frame to rest on the surface as taught Clarke (see claim 1).
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conti (GB 2,028,108 A) and Buege (US Pub. No. 2011/0073553 A1), and in further view of Goldberg (US Pat. No. 5,337,904).
In regards to claim 37, Conti, modified by Buege, does not teach the base is coupled to a bottom glideable surface. Goldberg teaches a base (12) coupled to a bottom glideable surface (i.e.; felt pad 22; Col 2, Lines 39-45).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to further modify Conti’s kit such that the base is coupled to a bottom glideable surface. The motivation would be for the purpose of providing a no-scratch pad as taught by Goldberg (Col 2, Lines 39-42).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22, 24 and 30 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 23 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 21, 25-27, 31-33 and 38-40 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record is discussed above. The prior art of record does not anticipate or make obvious a shelving system, shelving kit, and storage system having the combination of structural and functional limitations of Applicant’s claimed invention.
Conclusion
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