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 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,290,914. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-10 do not claim any structure not already claimed in claims 1-8 of USP ‘914.
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) 1-6, 11-15 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0327134 to Lundrigan et al. in view of US 9,193,063 to Huang.
Regarding claim 1 Lundrigan ‘134 discloses a support platform for a modular storage utility module comprising: a first back plate 25; a first face plate 90 coupled to the first back plate 25 (Figs. 3 and 4A – paras 0032-0034); and a first female coupler 125 collectively defined by the first back plate 25 and the first face plate 90, the first female coupler 125 comprising: a recessed surface defined by the first back plate 25 (Fig. 1); a back wall 85; a front wall 90 opposite the back wall 85; a first sidewall 91; a second sidewall 91 opposite the first sidewall (Fig. 3); and wherein the female coupler 125 is configured to removably couple with male coupler 152 of a first utility module 150. Lundrigan ‘134 also discloses “other suitable obstruction member for locking interface 150 relative [to] slatwall interface 20” (para 0039).
Lundrigan ‘134 is silent as to a plurality of female couplers and a first rib; wherein the first rib extends from the back wall toward the front wall, wherein the first rib extends from the first sidewall toward the second sidewall.
However, Huang ‘063 teaches a mounting assembly where a plurality of female couplers 11 used to support objects relative to a platform 1 wherein a first rib 13; wherein the first rib 13 extends from the back wall toward the front wall, wherein the first rib 13 extends from the first sidewall toward the second sidewall (Fig. 4 – col. 3, lines 21-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support platform taught in Lundrigan ‘134 with the plurality of couplers and ribs as taught in Huang ‘063 in order to support a plurality and/or variety of utility modules or objects sturdily relative to a wall via the platform.
Regarding claim 2, Lundrigan ‘134, as modified, discloses, wherein each of the first plurality of female couplers comprises a second rib 13, wherein the second rib 13 extends from the back wall toward the front wall, and wherein the second rib 13 extends from the first sidewall toward the second sidewall (Fig. 1 and 3-5; col. 3, lines 21-25).
Regarding claim 3, Lundrigan ‘134, as modified, where Huang ‘063 discloses, wherein the first rib 13 and the second rib 13 each extend laterally above the recessed surface (as modified).
Regarding claim 4, Lundrigan ‘134, as modified, discloses, further comprising a plurality of apertures 45 extending through the recessed surface, the plurality of apertures 45 configured to couple the first back plate 25 to a wall (Figs. 1 and 5; paras 0030 and 0044).
Regarding claim 5, Lundrigan ‘134, as modified, where Huang ‘063 discloses, wherein the first plurality of female couplers 11 include a row of female couplers and a column of female couplers, the column of female couplers perpendicular to the row of female couplers (Figs. 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 6, Lundrigan ‘134, as modified, where Huang ‘063 discloses, wherein the row of female couplers 11 comprises: a first row; and a second row, the first row and the second row extending along a horizontal axis of the first face plate (as modified).
Regarding claim 11 Lundrigan ‘134 discloses a mounting structure comprising: a back plate 25; a face plate 90 coupled to the back plate 25; and a female coupler 125 defined by the back plate 25 and the face plate 90, the female coupler 125 comprising: a recessed surface defined by the back plate 25; a first sidewall 91; a second sidewall 91 opposite the first sidewall; and wherein each of the female coupler 125 are configured to removably couple with male coupler 152 of a first utility module 150.
Lundrigan ‘134 also discloses “other suitable obstruction member for locking interface 150 relative [to] slatwall interface 20” (para 0039).
Lundrigan ‘134 is silent as to a plurality of female couplers and a first protrusion; and a second protrusion wherein the first protrusion extends from the first sidewall toward the recessed surface, wherein the second protrusion extends from the second sidewall toward the recessed surface.
However, Huang ‘063 teaches a plurality of female couplers 11 and a first protrusion 13; and a second protrusion 13 wherein the first protrusion 13 extends from the first sidewall toward a recessed surface, wherein the second protrusion 13 extends from the second sidewall toward the recessed surface (Figs. 4-5 – col. 3, lines 21-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support platform taught in Lundrigan ‘134 with the plurality of couplers and protrusions as taught in Huang ‘063 in order to support a plurality and/or variety of utility modules or objects sturdily relative to a wall via the platform.
Regarding claim 12, Lundrigan ‘134, as modified, wherein each of the plurality of female couplers 125 (plurality as modified by Huang ‘063) further comprises a back wall 85 and a front wall 90 (side of 90 facing 85) opposite the back wall 85.
Regarding claim 13, Lundrigan ‘134, as modified, discloses wherein each of the plurality of female couplers 125 (as modified by Huang ‘063) further comprises a third protrusion (fastener inserted through opening 110 – paras. 0036 and 0039-0040), the third protrusion extending from the front wall toward the recessed surface (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 14, Lundrigan ‘134, as modified, where Huang ‘063 discloses wherein each of the plurality of female couplers further comprises: a first rib 13; and a second rib 13; wherein the first rib 13 extends from the back wall towards the front wall and the first rib 13 extends from the first sidewall towards the second sidewall, and wherein the second rib 13 extends from the back wall towards the front wall and the second rib 13 extends from the second sidewall towards the first sidewall (Figs. 4-5, col. 3, lines 21-25).
Regarding claim 15, Lundrigan ‘134, as modified, where Huang ‘063 discloses, wherein the plurality of female couplers 11 are arranged in a first row and a second row, the first row and the second row extending along a horizontal axis of the face plate (as modified).
Regarding claim 17, Lundrigan ‘134 discloses a support platform comprising: a back plate 25; a face plate 90 coupled to the back plate; and a female coupler 125 defined by the back plate 25 and the face plate 90, the female coupler 125 comprising: a recessed surface defined by the back plate 25; a back wall 85; a front wall 90 (side of 90 facing 85) opposite the back wall 85; and wherein the female coupler 125 is configured to removably couple with a male coupler 152 of a first utility module 150. Lundrigan ‘134 also discloses “other suitable obstruction member for locking interface 150 relative [to] slatwall interface 20” (para 0039).
Lundrigan ‘134 is silent as to a plurality of female couplers and a first protrusion; and wherein the first protrusion extends from the front wall toward the recessed surface.
However, Huang ‘063 teaches a plurality of female couplers 11 and a first protrusion 13; and wherein the first protrusion 13 extends from the front wall toward the recessed surface (Figs. 4-5 – col. 3, lines 21-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support platform taught in Lundrigan ‘134 with the plurality of couplers and protrusions as taught in Huang ‘063 in order to support a plurality and/or variety of utility modules or objects sturdily relative to a wall via the platform.
Regarding claim 18, Lundrigan ‘134, as modified, discloses wherein each of the plurality of female couplers 125 (as modified) further comprises a first sidewall 91 and a second sidewall 91 opposite the first sidewall.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 19-20 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.
Claims 7-10 are not rejected over the prior art and may contain allowable subject matter – noting the double patenting rejection.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: note the configuration of the multiple back plates or protrusions and ribs combo.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and will be used in subsequent office action rejections.
The list of supports is as follows: US-11385055-B2 OR US-12290914-B2 OR US-10629335-B2 OR US-8505720-B2 OR US-7424958-B1 OR US-6436357-B1 OR US-6048503-A OR US-10463226-B2 OR US-10405676-B1 OR US-10125919-B2 OR US-8459472-B2 OR US-8439209-B2 OR US-5957421-A OR US-5544747-A OR US-20060054769-A1 OR US-20150258678-A1 OR US-20090297293-A1 OR US-20230036215-A1 OR US-20170166352-A1 OR US-20150196370-A1 OR US-20160125978-A1 OR US-20130118938-A1 OR US-8371444-B1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA E MILLNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7507. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:00pm.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
/MONICA E MILLNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights