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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to communication filed on 09/24/2026. Claims 1 and 5-9 remain pending, with claim 1 currently amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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(s) 1 and 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 5,746,329 (hereinafter Rondeau) in view of US Patent 10,455,988 (hereinafter Lyons).
Regarding claim 1, Rondeau shows a set of a means for magnetic attachment of the
Regarding claim 5, Rondeau in view of Lyons shows the shelf and the holder are provided with at least one recess (42A) for accommodating one pair of oppositely arranged holding segments.
Regarding claim 6, Rondeau in view of Lyons shows wherein the shelf and the holder are provided with two to five side-by-side recesses for accommodating two to five pairs of oppositely arranged holding segments (Lyons, fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7, Rondeau in view of Lyons shows wherein the recesses (42A) are circular in shape (Rondeau, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Rondeau in view of Lyons shows wherein the shelf and the holder are made of plastic or aluminium or aluminium alloys or composite materials (Rondeau, plastic, col. 3, ln. 50-55).
Regarding claim 9, Rondeau in view of Lyons shows a bath/shower screen (22), wherein it comprises a set of a shelf and a holder of claim 1, removably attached on both sides of the bath/shower screen (fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Rondeau shows a hanger with a magnetic member and ferrous backing member and therefore fails to show both the holding segment in the holder and in the shelf are magnets. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As cited above, Rondeau col. 3, ln. 16-19 contemplates both members being magnets “Also, the ferrous backing member 30 may even be a magnet itself positioned for opposite polarity with respect to the magnet 44 for yet firmer engagement with the sheet material 22.” The rejection is deemed proper and maintained.
Applicant also argues that the intended use of Rondeau is a flexible sheet material and not a “thick, firm and smooth material of bath or shower screens.” Rondeau teaches the flexible sheet material can be a curtain or drape made of plastic such as polyvinyl chloride, and maybe woven, non-woven, knitted or even braided (col. 2, ln. 46-54). There is nothing to suggest the curtain as described by Rondeau would not be suitable as a shower curtain or screen. The rejection is deemed proper and maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JANIE M LOEPPKE whose telephone number is (571)270-5208. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM 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, David Angwin can be reached at (571) 270-3735. 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.
/JANIE M LOEPPKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
