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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Spain on 09 March 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the foreign application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species B (Fig. 12) in the reply filed on 13 July 2026 is acknowledged. Currently no claims are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 5, it appears “it” should read --the load storage system--
Claim 1, line 9, it appears “a support piece” should read --support pieces--
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15 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.
In regards to claim 1, “the outer face of their web” in lines 6-7, and “the inner face” in line 10 lack proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
In regards to claim 3, “their anchorage” lacks proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
In regards to claim 5, “their web” lacks proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
In regards to claim 6, “the wings”, “their free end”, and “the end frames” lack proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
In regards to claim 14, “the lower section” and “the lower structure” lacks proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
In regards to claim 15, “the upper free ends” lacks proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2, 4 and 7-13 are rejected based on their respective dependencies.
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 1-5, 7-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noakes (GB 818,459 A) in view of Benson et al. (US Pat. No. 5,372,262).
In regards to claim 1, Noakes teaches a load storage system for elongated elements, the load storage system comprising at least two gantries, where each gantry is formed by at least two vertical supports and at least one beam supported on the at least two vertical supports, such that between two contiguous gantries at least one load storage space is formed, so that each beam defines a storage level, wherein it comprises: a base comprising of at least two open profiles (33) with the outer face of their web resting on a support surface, so that the vertical supports (30) rest on the open profiles.
Noakes does not teach a support piece, which can be anchored to the vertical supports and in turn supported on the inner face of the web of the open profiles. Benson teaches a support pieces (26b), which can be anchored to vertical supports (8) an in turn supported on an inner face (22b) of a web of a profile (20b).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Noakes system to include a support piece, which can be anchored to the vertical supports and in turn supported on the inner face of the web of the open profiles. The motivation would be for the purpose of rigidly attaching the vertical supports to the open profiles by fasteners as taught by Benson (Col 3, Lines 54-59), therefore preventing unintended detachment.
PNG
media_image1.png
412
418
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 2, Noakes does not explicitly teach the open profiles are anchored to the support surface. However, Noakes illustrates apertures in the open profiles capable of receiving a bolt or fastener (see above). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Noakes system to have the open profiles anchored to the support surface via the apertures. The motivation would be for the purpose of stabilizing the system in fixed locations as would be readily obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
In regards to claim 3, Noakes does not teach at least two contiguous open profiles are joined together by means of their anchorage with at least one brace beam. Benson teaches at least two contiguous open profiles (20a, 20b) are joined together by means of their anchorage with at least one brace beam (18).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Noakes system to include at least two contiguous open profiles joined together by means of their anchorage with at least one brace beam. The motivation would be for the purpose of mounting a cover or skirt as taught by Benson (Col 3, Lines 31-34).
In regards to claim 4, modified Noakes teaches the open profiles (33) are metal U-profiles (Page 1, Lines 8-9).
In regards to claim 5, in modifying Noakes, Benson teaches the support pieces (Benson: 26) are open U-shaped profiles in which the plane of their web is arranged perpendicular to the support surface (e.g.; see structure of 26b in Fig. 1 of Benson).
In regards to claim 7, modified Noakes teaches each gantry is formed by three vertical supports (i.e.; the system is expandable using sections 31 joined to uprights 30 of Noakes; see Fig. 1 of Noakes illustrating additional sections 34 on the left and right of the gantries).
In regards to claim 8 and 11, in modifying Noakes, Benson teaches each support piece (Benson: 26) is anchored to a vertical support (Benson: 8) by means of quick fasteners (claim 8) being rivets (claim 11) (Benson: Col 3, Lines 54-59).
In regards to claims 9, 10 and 12, in modifying Noakes, Benson does not particularly teach using pins, bolts, or screws. However, Benson teaches using conventional fasteners (Col 3, Lines 54-59). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Noakes system to use pins, bolts, or screws. The motivation would be for the purpose of choosing from a number of conventional fasteners as recognized by Benson (Col 3, Lines 54-59).
In regards to claim 15, modified Noakes teaches the upper free ends of the vertical supports (Noakes: 30) are braced by means of at least a second horizontal open profile (Noakes: 31) that are fastened by means of screws or bolts to the vertical support itself (Noakes: Page 2, Lines 85-89).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noakes (GB 818,459 A) in view of Benson et al. (US Pat. No. 5,372,262) and Reyes (US Pat. No. 10,512,326).
In regards to claim 13, Noakes, modified by Benson, does not teach each vertical support comprises at least two sections that are connected by means of a closed profile that is internally aligned with respect to the vertical supports for the correct transmission of the load and which is fastened by means of screws or bolts.
Reyes teaches each vertical support (204, Fig. 2) comprises at least two sections that are connected by means of a closed profile (110) that is internally aligned with respect to the vertical supports for the correct transmission of the load and which is fastened by means of screws or bolts (Col 3, Lines 45-63).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Noakes’s system such that each vertical support comprises at least two sections that are connected by means of a closed profile that is internally aligned with respect to the vertical supports for the correct transmission of the load and which is fastened by means of screws or bolts . The motivation would be for the purpose of facilitate stacking for additional storage as taught by Reyes (see Abstract).
In regards to claim 14, in modifying Noakes, Reyes teaches at least one horizontal open profile (Reyes: 102, Fig. 2) for bracing the lower section of the vertical supports, so that the fastening by means of screws or bolts is carried out between the closed profiles (Reyes: 110), the lower sections (Reyes: 204) of the vertical supports and the horizontal open profile itself, bracing the lower structure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record does not teach or suggest further modifying Noakes’s system to include the structural and functional limitations as recited in claim 6 and all intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the PTO-892 for additional prior art related to Applicant’s claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STANTON L KRYCINSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5381. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00AM-5:00PM 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, 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.
/Stanton L Krycinski/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights