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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/17/25 and 12/11/25 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 23 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Claims 6 and 23 are distinct methods. Original claim 6 requires a method including operationally connecting at least one structural member, at least one bracket, and at least one fastener to form at least one industrial rack unit, which is not required by newly added claim 23. Likewise, newly added claim 23 requires a step of providing a plurality of interchangeable structural members, at least one bracket and at least one fastener, operationally connecting at least one of the interchangeable structural members in a vertical orientation to at least one of the interchangeable structural members in a horizontal orientation using at least one bracket and at least one fastener to form an industrial rack unit”, which was not required by originally filed claim 6.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 23 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6-13 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant has amended claim 6 to include “operationally connecting at least one structural member in a vertical orientation, at least one structural member in a horizontal orientation” and “the structural members are interchangeable”. From a review of the specification, there appears to be no disclosure of the newly added limitations. The newly recited limitations are therefore considered new matter which is not supported by the original disclosure as filed.
Claims 7-13 and 21-22 are rejected as a result of being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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) 6-7, 9, 11-12, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brady et al. (US 2008/0217276) in view of Vanderhoek et al. (US 2010/0096344).
8. Regarding to Claim 6, Brady et al. discloses a method for constructing and deconstructing modular, industrial racks [as described in paragraph 0006 and can be seen from Figures 1-5 in Brady et al.], comprising the steps of:
operationally connecting at least one structural member (a first post 14, as can be seen from Figure 1 in Brady et al.) in a vertical orientation [as can be seen from Figure 1 in Brady et al.], at least one structural member (a first and second frame member 28, as described in paragraph 0017 and can be seen from Figure 2 in Brady et al.), at least one bracket (a first bracket 21, as can be seen from Figure 1 in Brady et al.), and at least one fastener (fasteners, as described in paragraph 0016 in Brady et al.) to form at least one industrial rack unit [as can be seen from Figures 1-5 in Brady et al.], wherein the at least one structural member (first 14) is constructed of thin-walled metal tubing [as described in paragraph 0014, as well as can be seen from Figure 1-5 in Brady et al.]; continuing the connecting step until the rack unit complete [as can be seen from Figure 3 in Brady et al.]; positioning the at least one industrial rack unit in a shipping container (larger shipping container or transport device, as described in paragraph 0027 in Brady et al.); and nondestructively disassembling the at least one rack unit back into the at least one structural member (first 14), the at least one bracket (first 21), and the at least one fastener (fasteners, as described in paragraph 0016) [as described in lines 9-11 of paragraph 0028 in Brady et al.], wherein the at least one structural member (first 14), the at least one bracket (first 21), and the at least one fasteners (fasteners, as described in paragraph 0016) are capable of being reconstructed into rack units [as described paragraph 0028-0029 in Brady et al.].
Brady et al. discloses the structural members, such as the post 14 may be removed from frame 12 such that only frame 12 is returned for reuse or such that they are returned separately [paragraph 0028 in Brady et al.]. However, Brady et al. does not explicitly disclose a step of disassembling the at least one rack back into the at least one structural member, the at least one bracket, and the at least one fastener into individual components, which are capable of being reconstructed into rack units. However, 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 disassembly step in Brady et al. to include a step of further disassembling the at least one rack back into the at least one structural member, the at least one bracket, and the at least one fastener, which can later be reconstructed, as a known technique applied to a known device which would yield predictable results and enable the safe keepings of small or loose parts, such as the at least one fastener and the at least one bracket.
However, Brady et al. does not explicitly disclose the structural members being interchangeable. Vanderhoek et al., however teaches an apparatus having structural members that can be interchanged [as described in paragraph 0071 in Vanderhoek et al.]. Therefore, 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 structural members in Brady et al. to include having interchangeable structural members, a taught by Vanderhoek et al. to enable ease of replacement of damaged parts [as described in paragraph 0071 in Vanderhoek et al.].
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include interchangeable parts, as a known technique used to improve manufacturing processes, which would yield predictable results.
9. Regarding to Claim 7, Brady et al. modified by Vanderhoek et al. discloses the method of claim 6, further comprising the step of: storing the at least one structural members (first 14) and the at least one fastener (fasteners, as described in paragraph 0016) for reuse [as described in paragraph 0028-0029 in Brady et al.].
10. Regarding to Claim 9, Brady et al. modified by Vanderhoek et al. discloses the method of claim 6. However, Brady et al. does not explicitly disclose repairing a damage rack unit by replacing at least one damaged portion. Vanderhoek et al. however, discloses a step of repairing a damaged rack unit by replacing at least one damaged portion [as described in paragraph 0071 in Vanderhoek et al.]. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Brady et al. to include a step of repairing a damaged rack by replacing at least one damaged portion comprising the steps of: disconnecting the at least one damaged portion from the rest of the rack unit; removing the at least one damaged portion to define at least one gap; inserting at least one undamaged portion into the at least one gap; and operationally connecting the undamaged portion to the rest of the rack unit, as a well-known technique used for repairing a damaged part. Therefore, 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 method of Brady et al. to include a step of repairing a damaged rack unit by replacing at least one damaged portion, as taught by Vanderhoek et al., which includes a step of disconnecting the at least one damaged portion from the rest of the rack unit; removing the at least one damaged portion to define at least one gap; inserting at least one undamaged portion into the at least one gap; and operationally connecting the undamaged portion to the rest of the rack unit, as a well-known technique used for repairing a damaged part, which would yield predictable results.
11. Regarding to Claim 11, Brady et al. modified by Vanderhoek et al. discloses the method of claim 6, further comprising the step of: loading the at least one industrial rack unit (a step of loading products to be shipped, as described in paragraph 0006 in Brady et al.); shipping the at least one shipping container to a predetermined destination [as described in paragraph 0027-0029 in Brady et al. Note that it is inherent to transport an item in a shipping container to be shipped to a desired destination]; and unloading the at least one industrial rack unit [as described in paragraph 0028. Note that it is inherent to unload a product when it is delivered at the desired location].
12. Regarding to Claim 12, Brady et al. modified by Vanderhoek et al. discloses the method of claim 6, further comprising the step of: placing at least one parcel (a step of placing a first product on the rack, as described in paragraph 0006 in Brady et al.) on the at least one rack unit; and removing the at least one parcel (a step of removing the first product when it has been delivered to desired destination after shipping, as described in paragraph 0006 and 0028 in Brady et al.) from the at least one rack unit [as described in paragraph 0006 and 0028 in Brady et al.].
13. Regarding to Claim 21, Brady et al. modified by Vanderhoek et al. discloses the method of claim 6 comprising the step of shipping the disassembled at least one structural member (first 14), the at least one bracket (first 21), and the at least one fasteners (fasteners, as described in paragraph 0016) [as described in paragraph 0028-0029 in Brady et al.].
14. Claim(s) 8, 10, 13 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brady et al. (US 2008/0217276) in view of Vanderhoek et al. (US 2010/0096344), as applied to claim 6 above, in further view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
15. Regarding to Claim 8, Brady et al. modified by Vanderhoek et al. discloses the method of claim 6. However, the combination of Brady et al. and Vanderhoek et al. does not explicitly disclose the steps of measuring cargo to be shipped to determine cargo dimensions and wherein the rack unit has a cargo volume that accommodates the cargo dimensions. However, applicant’s admitted prior art (AAPA) discloses a shipping rack that is custom made, as described in paragraph 0003 of the specification of the instant application. In order to make a custom made rack, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to measure cargo to be shipped to determine the cargo dimension in order to design a rack for that cargo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have measured as a pre-construction step of making the custom rack in order to securely support cargo. Therefore, 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 method disclosed by the combination of Brady et al. and Vanderhoek et al. to include a step of making a custom rack, as taught by AAPA, which would include a step of measuring cargo to be shipped to determine cargo dimensions and allow the rack unit to securely accommodates the cargo, as a pre-construction step in order to design a well-fitting custom rack for cargo to be shipped.
16. Regarding to Claim 10, Brady et al. modified by Vanderhoek et al. discloses the method of claim 6. However, the combination of Brady et al. and Vanderhoek et al. does not explicitly disclose a step of receiving at least one rack schematic. However, Applicant’s admitted prior art (AAPA) discloses a shipping rack that is custom made, as described in paragraph 0003 of the specifications of the instant application. In order to make a custom made rack, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to receive custom dimensions and a drawing/blueprint/schematic of the custom rack to be made in order to design a rack for a product as a pre-construction step to aid in the designing, visualizing and assembly of the custom made rack. Therefore, 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 method in the combination of Brady et al. and Vanderhoek et al. to include a step of making a custom made rack, as taught by AAPA, which would include a step receiving a rack design schematic, as a pre-construction step and known technique used in order to aid in designing, visualizing, and assembly of the rack to be made.
17. Regarding to Claim 13, Brady et al. modified by Vanderhoek et al. discloses the method of claim 6, further comprising the step of: converting the at least one rack schematic specifications into a rack unit based on at least one inventory of the at least one structural member (a first 14), the at least one bracket (a first 21), and the at least one fastener (fasteners, as described in paragraph 0016) [note that the rack is interpreted as being assembled according to the manufactures schematic specifications and is formed by utilizing the included mechanical parts/inventory, including the at least one structural member, at least one bracket, and at least one fastener, as can be seen from Figures 1-5 in Brady et al.].
However, the combination of Brady et al. and Vanderhoek et al. does not explicitly disclose a step of receiving at least one rack schematic. However, Applicant’s admitted prior art (AAPA) discloses a shipping rack that is custom made, as described in paragraph 0003 of the specifications of the instant application. In order to make a custom made rack, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to receive custom dimensions and a drawing/blueprint/schematic of the custom rack to be made in order to design a rack for a product as a pre-construction step to aid in the designing, visualizing and assembly of the custom made rack. Therefore, 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 method in the combination of Brady et al. and Vanderhoek et al. to include a step of making a custom made rack, as taught by AAPA, which would include a step receiving a rack design schematic, as a pre-construction step and known technique used in order to aid in designing, visualizing, and assembly of the rack to be made.
18. Regarding to Claim 22, the combination of Brady et al., Vanderhoek et al., and AAPA discloses the method of claim 8. However, the combination of Brady et al., Vanderhoek et al., and AAPA does not explicitly disclose a step of generating a schematic from the measured cargo dimensions. However, in order to make a custom made rack, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to generate a drawing/blueprint/schematic of the custom rack to be made in order to design a rack for a product as a pre-construction step to aid in the designing, visualizing and assembly of the custom made rack. Therefore, 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 method in the combination of Brady et al., Vanderhoek et al., and AAPA, to include a step of generating a schematic from the measured cargo dimensions, as a pre-construction step and known technique used in order to aid in designing, visualizing, and assembly of the rack to be made.
Response to Arguments
19. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 6-13 and 11-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues the prior art of Brady does not disclose disassembling the rack in Brady and vertically oriented post pieces as being interchangeable with the horizontally oriented frame pieces, as newly amended to claim. This is considered moot in view of the new grounds of rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIRVANA DEONAUTH whose telephone number is (571)270-5949. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached on 571 272 0993. 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.
/NIRVANA DEONAUTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726