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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only (claim 12 refers to claim 1 and 11). See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 12 has not been further treated on the merits.
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 11 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 11, in lines 12-13, it is unclear if the lateral wall and connection holes are the same or different than those recited in claim 1. Appropriate explanation or correction is required.
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, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Horton (US Pat. No. 2,942,364).
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).
In regards to claim 2, Horton teaches 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; 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).
In regards to claim 5, Horton teaches the lateral walls (20) of the first pair of lateral walls each comprise a respective succession of connection holes (25) and the lateral walls (20) of the second pair of lateral walls each comprise a respective succession of connection holes (25).
In regards to claim 6, Horton teaches said plurality of main holes (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 (25) is made on a respective lateral wall so as to be aligned with one of said groups (e.g.; see Fig. 3).
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 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horton (US Pat. No. 2,942,364) in view of Lorton (GB 797,732).
In regards to claims 3 and 4, Horton 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 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).
Claims 7, 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 claims 7 and 8, 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 (claim 7); and the auxiliary holes are spaced apart from each other by a distance (d) equal to the distance (D) by which the connection holes are spaced apart from each other (claim 8).
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) for connecting the panel to other panels, and the auxiliary holes are spaced apart from each other by a distance (d) equal to the distance (D) by which connection holes (140) are spaced apart from each other.
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 (claim 7); and the auxiliary holes are spaced apart from each other by a distance (d) equal to the distance (D) by which the connection holes are spaced apart from each other (claim 8). 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 10, in modifying Horton, Grove teaches the auxiliary holes (Grove: 142) have the same shape and the same size as main holes (Grove: 140).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horton (US Pat. No. 2,942,364) in view of Voigtlander (US Pat. No. 2,974,918).
In regards to claim 9, Horton does not teach the main holes and the connection holes have the same size and same shape. Voigtlander teaches main holes (t) and connection holes (28) 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 modify . 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).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horton (US Pat. No. 2,942,364) in view of Johnson (US Pat. No. 10,143,300 B2).
In regards to claim 11, Horton 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).
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