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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a first hook and a second hook” (claim 26); “the first support unit comprises a first hook” (claim 27) must be shown and labelled in the drawings or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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.
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 26-27, 29-31 and 33 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.
Regarding claim 26, the following limitation “a coupling unit comprising a first hook and a second hook” is unclear and confusing in view of the applicant’s drawings and specification. Paragraph [0042] of the Applicant’s specification states Fig 4a discloses: “Vertical rail 400 comprises a coupling unit comprising a first hook and a second hook configured to removably couple with a track”. Paragraphs [0046] & [0047] state: “It is also contemplated that coupling unit 402 comprises track couplers 416. Track couplers 416 allowing coupling unit 402 to removably couple with a horizontal track or one or more support units 408 and 410 of vertical rail 400. However, it is also contemplated that track couplers 416 do not exist in some embodiments, such as in Fig. 4D”.
Therefore, it appears that the coupling unit #402 may have only one hook see the annotated Fig 4B below:
PNG
media_image1.png
788
517
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 26, the preambles of claims 26 only positively claims the vertical rail and not the combination of the vertical rail and a track. The track in the preamble is referred to only in a functional manner. For example, claim 26 recites “for removably coupling a device to a track”…”configured to removably couple with the track” (which refers to the track in a function manner only). However, in the body of the claim 26 it recites, “…wherein the track is a separate component from the vertical rail”. Thus, it is unclear if the applicant intends to be positively claiming the track in line 5 of claim 26. So the claims create confusion as to what is intended to be claimed, either the combination or subcombination. For purposes of examination on the merits, the examiner is treating the claims to be construed as the subcombination. The examiner interprets “wherein the track is a separate component from the vertical rail” to be a functional limitation.
If the applicant intends to claim the combination, then it is suggested to do so clearly.
If applicant intends to claim the subcombination, a recommended amendment could be – - wherein, when in use, the track is a separate component from the vertical rail --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 27, 29-31 and 33 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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 26-27, 29, and 31 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rowe 2003/0234231.
Regarding claim 26, as best understood, Rowe discloses a vertical rail (Fig 1, #1 & #25) for removably coupling a device to a track that is configured to be mounted on a structure, comprising:
a coupling unit (Fig 3, #25) comprising a first hook (Figs 6d & 7d, #26a & #27) and a second hook (Fig 7d, #45) that are configured to or capable of removably coupling with the track such that the first hook (Figs 6d & 7d, #26a & #27) and the second hook (Fig 7d, 345) at least partially engage a rear surface of the track, wherein the track is a separate component from the vertical rail (Fig 1, #1 & #25);
a first wall (Fig 3, left side wall of #1) (also shown in Fig 1) [0028] [0029] [0032] coupled to the coupling unit (Fig 3, #25);
a second wall (Fig 3, right side wall of #1) (also shown in Fig 1) [0028] [0029] [0032] coupled to the coupling unit (Fig 3, #25);
a first support unit (front wall) (annotated Fig 3 below) coupled to the first wall (Fig 3, left side wall of #1) and the second wall (Fig 3, right side wall of #1), wherein the first support unit (front wall) (annotated Fig 3 below) is disposed below the coupling unit (Fig 3, #25); and
a slot (Fig 3, #7) disposed between the coupling unit (Fig 3, #25) and the first support unit (annotated Fig 3 below), wherein the slot (Fig 3, #7) is sized and dimensioned to receive a coupling member of the device.
PNG
media_image2.png
802
828
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 27, Rowe discloses the vertical rail wherein, when in use, the coupling member of the device comprises a first device hook, and wherein the first support unit (annotated Fig 3 above) comprises a first engagement surface (annotated Fig 3 below) that is configured to or capable of interacting with the first device hook.
PNG
media_image3.png
846
899
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 29, Rowe discloses the vertical rail further comprising:
a second support unit (annotated Fig 3 above) coupled to the first wall (Fig 3, left side wall of #1) and the second wall (Fig 3, right side wall of #1), and wherein the second support unit (annotated Fig 3 above) is disposed below the first support unit (annotated Fig 3 above); and
a second slot (annotated Fig 3 above) disposed between the first support unit (annotated Fig 3 above) and the second support unit (annotated Fig 3 above).
Regarding claim 31, as best understood, Rowe discloses the vertical rail wherein, when in use, the device is a bracket, and the coupling member is a hook, and wherein the slot (Fig 3, #7) (uppermost slot) is sized and dimensioned to receive the hook of the coupling member; and wherein the slot (Fig 3, #7) (uppermost slot) is defined by surfaces of (i) the coupling unit (Fig 3, #25), (11) the first support unit (annotated Fig 3 above), (iii) the first wall (Fig 3, right left wall of #1), and (iv) the second wall (Fig 3, right side wall of #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.
Claims 30 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowe 2003/0234231 in view of Baine 7,900,781.
Regarding claims 30 and 33, Rowe discloses the vertical rail wherein the first support unit (annotated Fig 3 above) & (annotated 6c below) is thinner than the coupling unit (annotated 6c below) (Fig 3, #25) (claim 33).
PNG
media_image4.png
806
708
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Rowe has been discussed above but does not explicitly teach wherein one or more of the first hook and the second hook is flexible to provide a snap-fit connection with the track (claim 30); wherein the first hook is more rigid than the second hook (claim 33).
Baine discloses a coupling unit (Figs 4 & 5, #131, #132, & #133) comprising a first hook (Fig 4, #134) and a second hook (Fig 4, #142); wherein one or more of the first hook and the second hook (Fig 4, #142) (col 3, line 67- col 4, line 3) is flexible to provide a snap-fit connection with a track (Figs 3 & 4, #110) (claim 30); wherein the first hook (Fig 4, #134) is more rigid than the second hook (Fig 4, #142) (Fig 4, #142) (col 3, line 67- col 4, line 3)(claim 33).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second hook (Rowe, Fig 7d, #45) to be made of a flexible plastic material as taught by Baine because the substitution of one known material (i.e flexible material or non-flexible material) for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments that “Rowe discloses a suspended storage system in which uprights hang from a crossbar. While Rowe's crossbar may be considered analogous to a track, Rowe nevertheless fails to disclose all elements of claim 26 as amended. Specifically, claim 26 recites "a slot disposed between the coupling unit and the first support unit, wherein the slot is sized and dimensioned to receive a coupling member of the device." In Applicant's claimed subject matter, this slot serves a specific
function: it receives a coupling member, such as a hook of a bracket, from a device that mounts to the vertical rail. The specification describes this at paragraph [0055], where brackets with hooks insert into slots 406 of vertical rail 400 to mount devices to the vertical rail. The structure identified by the Office Action in Rowe does not meet this limitation. Rowe's structure is not a slot disposed between a coupling unit and a first support unit that is sized and dimensioned to receive a coupling member of a device in the manner claimed. Rather, the structure in Rowe serves a different purpose and has a different configuration than the claimed slot. Because Rowe fails to disclose each and every element of claim 26, Rowe does not anticipate claim 26. Dependent claims 29 and 31 are also patentable over Rowe for at least the same reasons. Withdrawal of the rejection of claims 26, 29, and 31 over Rowe is respectfully requested” are not persuasive.
The examiner maintains that the applicant uses very broad claim language to describe the slot in claim 26. The examiner maintains that there is no claim language in claim 26 to distinguish the applicant’s slot from the slot (Rowe, annotated Fig 3 above) of Rowe. For example claim 26 does not require the slot to be elongated horizontally or for the slot to extend lengthwise in a horizontal direction. Further the coupling member of the device is not positively claimed, therefore the slot (Rowe, annotated Fig 3 above) of Rowe only has to be capable of receiving a coupling member of a device (such as a tab or hook of a shelf bracket or a tab or hook of a wall mounted hook).
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVIN K BARNETT whose telephone number is (571)270-1159. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-7:30pm.
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, 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.
/DEVIN K BARNETT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631