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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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.
2. Claims 1, 11, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0263125 A1 (Gonzalez) in further view of US 2007/0267375 A1 (Battaglia).
With respect to claim 1, Gonzalez shows a shelving assembly, comprising: a base (46, 50, Fig.1) having a front and a rear; at least two columns (22, 22, Fig.1) extending upward from the rear of the base; an upper cross-support beam (not numbered, upper cross beam in Fig.1) connecting an upper end portion of the two columns (22) ; a plurality of cantilevered support brackets (58, Fig.1), each bracket being attached to a respective one of the columns (22) at one of a plurality of selectable positions along a height of the respective one of the columns (22), and each bracket (58) extending forward over the base (46); and at least one shelf (62) supported between two laterally adjacent ones of the support brackets (58); wherein a span between the two columns is open so that shelf can be loaded from the rear (FIg.1) and wherein the base (46, FIg.1) further comprises two or more base struts (end side beams of the base 46) extending forward from a bottom portion of two or more respective columns (22), a cross-support beam (front cross beam of base 46) connecting a forward end portion of each of the two of the two or more base struts. With respect to claim 1, Gonzalez doesn’t show a removable sheet metal cover. Battaglia shows a removable sheet metal cover (202 and 206, FIg.2A, Fig.2B) disposed over the two or more base struts (106) and the cross-support beam (204) to form a base shelf (Fig.2B). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to include a removable metal cover to the base of Gonzalez, such as taught by Battaglia, in order to cover the space on the base to provide a solid horizontal surface to support objects thereon and prevent objects from falling out of the base and further provide aesthetically pleasing appearance to the base.
With respect to clams 11-12, modified Gonzalez doesn’t explicitly teach the shelf has a width ranging between 27 inches to 33 inches or 57 inches to 63 inches. It would have been obvious matter of design choice to make the width of the shelf between 27 inches to 33 inches or 57 inches to 63 inches, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Further it has been held that where only the difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimension would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device would not be patentably distinct from the prior art device.
With respect to claim 17, the combination (Gonzalez) shows wherein the shelf has an edge (at 74, Fig.1) positioned towards the front of the shelving assembly and extending seamlessly between two adjacent cantilevered brackets (58, 58, Fig.1).
3. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0263125 A1 (Gonzalez) in view of US 2007/0267375 A1 (Battaglia) in further in view of US 2013/0233818 A1 (GUPTA).
With respect to claim 2, modified Gonzalez doesn’t show an upper brace extending from the upper end portion of the least two columns. GUPTA shows an upper brace (at top 16, Fig.1) extending from the upper end portion of the at least two columns (36, Fig.1) and forward over the base, the brace comprising at a first forward strut (14, Fig.2) and a second forward strut (14) both extending substantially perpendicular to the upper cross-support beam (rear 16, Fig.2/53, Fig.8) and forward over the base, and a lateral strut (front 16, FIg.1) extending substantially parallel to the upper cross-support beam and connecting the front ends of the first struts (14, Fig.1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to include an upper brace extending from the upper end portion of the two columns, such as taught by GUPTA, in order to be able to further support other items thereon and further support and reinforce the shelving unit.
4. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0263125 A1 (Gonzalez) in view of US 2007/0267375 A1 (Battaglia) in further in view of US 2024/0285073 A1 (Shehata).
With respect to claim 2, modified Gonzalez doesn’t show an upper brace extending from the upper end portion of the least two columns. Shehata shows an upper brace (116, 118, Fig.2) extending from the upper end portion of the at least two columns (104, 104) and forward over the base, the brace comprising at a first forward strut (116) and a second forward strut (116) both extending substantially perpendicular to the upper cross-support beam (102) and forward over the base, and a lateral strut (118, Fig.2) extending substantially parallel to the upper cross-support beam (102) and connecting the front ends of the first struts (116). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to include an upper brace extending from the upper end portion of the two columns, such as taught by Shehata, in order to be able to further support other items thereon and further support and reinforce the shelving unit.
5. Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0263125 A1 (Gonzalez) in view of US 2007/0267375 A1 (Battaglia) in further in view of US 2016/0374466 A1 (Miller).
With respect to claim 3, modified Gonzalez doesn’t show an additional column. Miller shows an additional column (5, Fig.2) extending upwards from the rear of the base (7) and an additional upper cross-support beam (upper cross beam in Fig.2) for the additional column, wherein the additional upper cross-support beam connect the upper end portion of the additional column (5, FIg.5) to the upper end portion of an adjacent column (middle column 5, FIg.2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include an additional column and upper cross-support beam to the device of modified Gonzalez, such as taught by Miller, in order to provide additional shelf support surface to display more objects.
With respect to claim 4, the combination (Miller) shows further comprising one or more additional cantilevered support brackets (35, Fig.14) attached to a respective one of the additional columns (5, Fig.2, FIg.14) at one of a plurality of selectable positions along a height of the respective one of the additional columns (5) and extending forward over the base (7, Fig.2).
6. Claims 3, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0263125 A1 (Gonzalez) in view of US 2007/0267375 A1 (Battaglia) in further in view of US 2007/0262685 A1 (Randolph).
With respect to claim 3, modified Gonzalez doesn’t show an additional column. Randolph shows one or more additional columns (110, Fig.2) extending upwards from the rear of the base and an additional upper cross-support beam (cross beam on the top of adjacent columns 110, FIg.2) for each additional column, wherein the one or more additional upper cross-support beams connect the upper end portion of each of the one or more additional columns (110) to the upper end portion of an adjacent column (110, Fig.2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include an additional column and upper cross-support beam to the device of modified Gonzalez, such as taught by Randolph, in order to provide additional shelf support surface to display more objects.
With respect to claim 5, the combination (Randolph) shows wherein the base has an L-shaped footprint (L-shaped table surface in Fig.2), and at least one upper cross-support beam is substantially perpendicular to another upper cross-support beam (see cross beams on top of each column 110, FIg.2)
With respect to claim 8, the combination (Randolph) teaches wherein the at least one shelf (146, FIg.2) extends towards an interior of the L-shaped footprint and the columns (110) are disposed towards an exterior of the L-shaped footprint.
7. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0263125 A1 (Gonzalez) and US 2007/0267375 A1 (Battaglia) in view of US 2007/0262685 A1 (Randolph) in further view of 2,875,904 (Gingher).
With respect to claim 6, modified Gonzalez doesn’t show the shelf extends towards the exterior of the L-shaped footprint. Gingher shows different L-shaped footprint configurations (Fig.11, FIg.15); wherein the at least one shelf (29, FIg.11) extends towards an exterior of the L-shaped footprint (footprint formed by bases 12, 12) and the columns (9, 10) are disposed towards an interior of the L-shaped footprint. It would have been obvious to configure the device of modified Gonzalez such that the shelves extend exterior to the L-shaped footprint, such as taught by Gingher, in order to be used at an outside corner of a room/store with the shelves extending out from the corner in order to save storage space in the store.
8. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0263125 A1 (Gonzalez) in view of US 2007/0267375 A1 (Battaglia) in further view of US Patent 3,093,094 (Oztekin).
With respect to claim 10, modified Gonzalez doesn’t teach an angle between the cantilevered support bracket and it’s respective column is adjustable within 30 degrees of perpendicular to the column. Oztekin teaches an angle between a cantilevered support bracket (19, Fig.2) of the plurality of cantilevered support brackets and its respective column (11, Fig.1) is adjustable within 30° of perpendicular to the respective column (Fig.5, Col.2 lines 39-42). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the cantilevered brackets such that they can be adjustable within 30 degrees of perpendicular to the column, such as taught by Oztekin, in order to be able to tilt the shelf to a desired angle so as to view the items on the shelf better and urge the items thereon towards the front of the shelf.
9. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0263125 A1 (Gonzalez) in view of US 2007/0267375 A1 (Battaglia) in further view of US Patent 3,871,144 (Rudin).
With respect to claim 13, modified Gonzalez shows the shelf is a plurality of shelves (FIg.1) but doesn’t show the shelves have two different widths. Rudin shows shelves (63) with different widths (FIg.1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include shelves with different widths to the device of modified Gonzalez and include more columns to support the longer shelves, such as taught by Rudin, in order to create a shelf surface that can support longer and bigger objects thereon. The combination doesn’t teach the width ranging from 27 inches to 30 inches and at least one shelf with a width ranging from 57 inches to 63 inches. It would have been obvious matter of design choice to make the width of at least one shelf between 27 inches to 30 inches and another shelf having a width ranging from 57 inches to 63 inches, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Further it has been held that where only the difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimension would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device would not be patentably distinct from the prior art device.
10. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0263125 A1 (Gonzalez) in view of US 2007/0267375 A1 (Battaglia) in further view of US Patent 8,499,942 B1 (Coretti).
With respect to claim 14, modified Gonzalez doesn’t teach the shelf supports a load of at least 500 pounds. Coretti teaches the shelf can support a load of at least 500 pounds (Col.7 lines 42-45). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make the shelf of modified Gonzalez sturdy enough to support at least 500 pounds, such as taught by Coretti, in order to be able to hold and store heavy objects thereon.
11. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0263125 A1 (Gonzalez) in view of US 2007/0267375 A1 (Battaglia) in further view of US Patent 5,607,070 (Hellyer).
With respect to claim 16, modified Gonzalez doesn’t show the column has a keyhole slot and the cross-support beam comprises a number of pegs. Hellyer shows wherein each column (22, 24, Fig.2) of the at least two columns comprises at least one keyhole slot (40, Fig.2, FIg.3) at the upper end portion of the column (22, 24, Fig.2), wherein the cross-support beam (21) comprises a number of pegs (42, Fig.2) at each end corresponding to the number of keyhole slots in the upper end portion of each of the columns, and wherein each keyhole slot (40) comprises an aperture and a channel extending from the aperture (Fig.3), each peg (42) comprises a head portion and a shaft portion, and wherein the aperture of each keyhole slot is configured to receive the head portion of a corresponding peg (Fig.4), and the channel is configured to secure the head portion of the corresponding peg (FIg.5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include keyhole slot to the columns and pegs to the cross-support beam of modified Gonzalez, such as taught by Hellyer, in order to provide easy and quick to release and secure connection between the cross-support beam and the columns.
12. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0263125 A1 (Gonzalez) in view of US 2007/0267375 A1 (Battaglia) in further view of US 2006/0049726 A1 (Hayase).
With respect to claim 18, modified Gonzales doesn’t show a cooled shelving unit. Hayase shows a cooled shelving unit (Fig.3) enclosed in a refrigerated cooler (1, Fig.1), wherein the cooler comprises one or more doors (12, Fig.1) located in front of a front portion of the shelving assembly and an access point (rear door 12, see section 0026) located behind a rear portion of the shelving assembly and configured to allow access to the rear portion of the shelving assembly (section 0026) so that the shelves can be loaded from the rear. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the shelving unit of Gonzalez for a refrigerated cooler, such as taught by Hayase, in order to cool the items on the shelves within enclosed refrigerated chamber.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 27 and 28 are allowed.
Claims 7 and 9 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 1 (previously claim 15), applicant argued that the free-standing base deck 202 in Battaglia is positioned entirely within the space that originally held the fixed base deck and is thus laterally between structural elements not disposed over them. Applicant argued that if the free-standing base deck 202 were disposed over the base brackets 106 as the examiner suggests, it would necessarily occupy vertical space where the brackets sit.
The examiner takes the position that the examiner is considering the base deck 202 AND the leg caps 206 collectively as being equivalent to the “removable sheet metal cover”. As shown in the drawings the leg caps 206 are disposed OVER the two base brackets/base struts (106). Battaglia explicitly discloses “This leg cap 206 replaces the base bracket trim 118 and effectively covers any exposed portions of the base bracket 106” “the finished leg cap 206 should be sufficiently wide enough to fit OVER a base bracket 106; sufficiently long enough to cover the length of the base bracket 106” (sections 0039; 0043). Furthermore the base deck 202 is disposed over the cross support beam (204, Fig.2B) which is attached to the front ends of the base brackets/base struts (106). Thus, Battaglia does teach a removable sheet metal cover (202 and 206, Fig.2A, Fig.2B) disposed over the two base struts (106) and the cross-support beam (204) to form a base shelf.
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 HIWOT E TEFERA whose telephone number is (571)270-3320. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6PM.
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, Daniel Troy can be reached at 5712703742. 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.
/HIWOT E TEFERA/Examiner, Art Unit 3637