DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a first, a second, and a third panel” in line 3 should read --the first, the second, and the third panel--. 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 1, 5, 6, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horton (US Pat. No. 2,942,364) in view of Grove (US Pat. No. 6,591,995 B1).
In regards to claim 1, Horton teaches a tool-holder panel (10) comprising: a main wall (at 17) defining a wall unit, the main wall comprising a plurality of main holes (15, 16), each capable of accommodate a hooking means for a tool or a connection means for connecting said panel to other tool-holder panels (e.g.; by insertion into the main holes); a first pair of lateral walls (left and right 20, Fig. 3) opposite each other and extending perpendicularly to said main wall starting from respective edges of said main wall; a second pair of lateral walls (top and bottom 20, Fig. 3) opposite each other and extending perpendicularly to said main wall starting from respective edges of said main wall; said first pair of lateral walls (20) cooperating with said second pair of lateral walls (20) so as to substantially define a frame for said main wall; said panel being characterised in that at least one of the first and second pairs of lateral walls comprises, for each lateral wall of the pair, a succession of connection holes (25), each configured to accommodate a connection means (e.g.; bolts) for connecting said panel to other tool-holder panels (Col 3, Lines 42-44); and a first pair of auxiliary flanges (left and right 24, Fig. 3), each auxiliary flange extending perpendicularly to a respective lateral wall (20) of the first pair of lateral walls starting from a free edge of said lateral wall; and /or a second pair of auxiliary flanges (top and bottom 24, Fig. 3), each auxiliary flange extending perpendicularly to a respective lateral wall (20) of the second pair of lateral walls starting from a free edge of said lateral wall; the auxiliary flanges of the first and second pairs facing said main wall (see Figs. 4 and 5).
Horton does not teach each auxiliary flange of at least one of the first and second pairs of auxiliary flanges comprises a succession of auxiliary holes, each configured to accommodate a connection means for connecting said panel to other panels.
Grove teaches a panel having a pair of auxiliary flanges (130) comprising a succession of auxiliary holes (142) each configured to accommodate a connection means (150) capable of being used for connecting the panel to other panels.
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 Horton’s panel such that each auxiliary flange of at least one of the first and second pairs of auxiliary flanges comprises a succession of auxiliary holes, each configured to accommodate a connection means for connecting said panel to other panels. The motivation would be for the purpose of removably connecting the panel to a mounting surface as taught by Grove (Col 6, Lines 14-31).
In regards to claim 5, modified Horton teaches the lateral walls (Horton: 20) of the first pair of lateral walls each comprise a respective succession of connection holes (Horton: 25) and the lateral walls (Horton: 20) of the second pair of lateral walls each comprise a respective succession of connection holes (Horton: 25).
In regards to claim 6, modified Horton teaches said plurality of main holes (Horton: 15, 16) are distributed over the main wall in an orderly manner in order to define groups in which the main holes of each group are aligned with each other, and wherein each connection hole (Horton: 25) is made on a respective lateral wall so as to be aligned with one of said groups (e.g.; see Fig. 3 of Horton).
In regards to claim 8, in modifying Horton, Grove teaches the auxiliary holes (Grove: 142) are spaced apart from each other by a distance (d) equal to the distance (D) by which connection holes (Grove: 140) are spaced apart from each other
In regards to claim 10, in modifying Horton, Grove teaches the auxiliary holes (Grove: 142) have the same shape and the same size as main holes (Grove: 140).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horton (US Pat. No. 2,942,364) and Grove (US Pat. No. 6,591,995 B1), and in further view of Lorton (GB 797,732).
In regards to claims 3 and 4, Horton, modified by Grove, does not teach only the lateral walls of the first pair of lateral walls each comprise a respective succession of connection holes (claim 3); and only the lateral walls of the second pair of lateral walls each comprise a respective succession of connection holes (claim 3).
Lorton teaches only the lateral walls (9) of a first or second pair of lateral walls each comprise a respective succession of connection holes (see Fig. 2).
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 Horton’s panel such that only the lateral walls of the first pair of lateral walls each comprise a respective succession of connection holes (claim 3); or only the lateral walls of the second pair of lateral walls each comprise a respective succession of connection holes (claim 3). The motivation would be for the purpose of attaching the panel to stands as taught by Lorton (Page 1, Lines 85-91).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horton (US Pat. No. 2,942,364) and Grove (US Pat. No. 6,591,995 B1), and in further view of Voigtlander (US Pat. No. 2,974,918).
In regards to claim 9, Horton, modified by Grove, does not teach the main holes and the connection holes have the same size and same shape. Voigtlander teaches main holes (t, Fig. 2) and connection holes (28, Fig. 3) having the same size and same shape (see Figs. 2 and 3).
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 Horton to have the main holes and the connection holes having the same size and same shape. The motivation would be for the purpose of readily mounting a plurality of hanging brackets of various commercial types and sizes as taught by Voigtlander (Col 4, Lines 12-14).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horton (US Pat. No. 2,942,364) and Grove (US Pat. No. 6,591,995 B1), and in further view of Johnson (US Pat. No. 10,143,300 B2).
In regards to claim 11, Horton, modified by Grove, does not teach a tool-holder structure, comprising: a first panel constructed in accordance with claim 1, said first panel extending along a first axis of extension; a second panel constructed in accordance with claim 1, said second panel extending along a second axis of extension; a third panel constructed in accordance with claim 1, said third panel extending along a third axis of extension; connection means configured to reversibly connect the second and third panels to said first panel; said first panel being arranged, in an assembly configuration, in such a way that said first axis of extension is perpendicular to the floor; said second and third panels being, in said assembly configuration, engaged to said first panel by means of a respective lateral wall provided with connection holes so that said second and third panels are arranged perpendicularly to said first panel and said second and third axes of extension are parallel to the first axis of extension.
Johnson teaches a tool-holder structure comprising a first panel (22, Fig. 2) extending along a first axis of extension; a second panel (24) extending along a second axis of extension; a third panel (26) extending along a third axis of extension; connection means configured to reversibly connect the second and third panels to said first panel; said first panel being arranged, in an assembly configuration, in such a way that said first axis of extension is perpendicular to the floor; said second and third panels being, in said assembly configuration, engaged to said first panel by means of a respective lateral wall (34) provided with connection holes so that said second and third panels are arranged perpendicularly to said first panel and said second and third axes of extension are parallel to the first axis of extension (Col 9, Lines 59-67 to Col 10, Lines 1-3).
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 Horton’s device to form a tool-holder structure, comprising: a first panel constructed in accordance with claim 1, said first panel extending along a first axis of extension; a second panel constructed in accordance with claim 1, said second panel extending along a second axis of extension; a third panel constructed in accordance with claim 1, said third panel extending along a third axis of extension; connection means configured to reversibly connect the second and third panels to said first panel; said first panel being arranged, in an assembly configuration, in such a way that said first axis of extension is perpendicular to the floor; said second and third panels being, in said assembly configuration, engaged to said first panel by means of a respective lateral wall provided with connection holes so that said second and third panels are arranged perpendicularly to said first panel and said second and third axes of extension are parallel to the first axis of extension. The motivation would be for the purpose of constructing an exemplary system for holding material over a ground surface as taught by Johnson (Col 11, Lines 38-54).
In regards to claim 12, Horton, modified by Grove and Johnson, teaches a kit for the assembly of a structure (Johnson: 10, Fig. 1) according to claim 11, comprising: a first, a second and a third panel (Johnson: 22, 24, 26); and connection means (e.g.; fasteners) configured to reversibly connect the first, second and third panels to each other.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 21 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, in modifying Horton, Grove teaches the auxiliary flanges are used to secure the panel to a wall with a gap therebetween, and therefore does not teach the auxiliary flanges being used to mount the panel to other panels.
In response to applicant's argument that the auxiliary flanges and holes are for connecting the panel to other panels, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007)). In an obviousness analysis it is not necessary to find precise teachings in the prior art directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account (Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396).
In the instant case, one of ordinary skill and creativity in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the auxiliary flanges and holes are capable of being used to connect one of the panels to other panels by aligning the respective holes of one panel with another and securing them together with a conventional fastener (e.g.; 150 of Grove).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights