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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-19 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding amended claim 1, the added language “from any existing column” lacks antecedent basis and is vague and indefinite. Claims 2-19 is rejected since they depend from rejected claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 21, 22, 24-26, 28, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Klinger (US no. 20210252650).
Regarding claim 21, Klinger discloses a system for repairing an upright frame of an industrial pallet rack while the industrial pallet rack is in use and standing on a floor, the system comprising: a first replacement column (221, figure 7) extending away from a replacement base (212); and a second replacement column (230, figure 7) configured to be disposed adjacent to the first replacement column (221) and further configured to be coupled to a first face (239, figure 5) of the first replacement column and coupled to the replacement base (212, figure 6).
Regarding claim 22, Klinger discloses the system of claim 21, further comprising a cuff (260, figure 7 or 360, figure 9) configured to couple the first replacement column (221) to an undamaged portion (12, figure 7) of a damaged column.
Regarding claim 24, Klinger discloses the system of claim 21 further comprising a bracket (36, figure 6) configured to receive an existing strut (32 or 34, figure 6) of the industrial pallet rack, wherein the bracket (36) is further configured to be disposed on a first face of the second replacement column (230).
Regarding claim 25, Klinger discloses the system of claim 21, further comprising a strut (32, figures 6 and 9) having a first end (adjacent 36) configured to be coupled to a first face of the second replacement column (230, figure 6) and a second end configured to be coupled to an existing column (12, figure 9) of the industrial pallet rack.
Regarding claim 26, Klinger discloses the system of claim 21, wherein: the caudal end of the second replacement column (230 or 330, figure 9) has a flange (the end wall 136, figure 3) configured to be disposed against the replacement base (112 or 312), a first face (134, figure 3) of the second replacement column (130 or 230) is configured to receive one of a bracket and a strut (32 or 34), and a second face (the face in contact with column 120, figure 3 for example) of the second replacement column is configured to be disposed against the first face of the first replacement column.
Regarding claim 28, Klinger discloses the system of claim 21, wherein a first face (134, figure 3) of the second replacement column (130) includes a pallet rack connection cutout pattern (135, figure 3).
With respect to claim 33. (New) Klinger discloses a system for repairing an upright frame of an industrial pallet rack while the industrial pallet rack is in use and standing on a floor, the system comprising: a first replacement column (221, figure 7) extending away from a replacement base (212); and a second replacement column (230, figure 7) configured to be disposed adjacent to the first replacement column (221, figure 7), the second replacement column (230) having a flange (the inward turned flange parallel to the wall 239 of the channel 230, figure 5) that is perpendicular to a length (a horizontal length) of the second replacement column (230), wherein: the second replacement column is configured to be coupled to a first face (at 239) of the first replacement column (221), and the flange is configured to be disposed touchingly adjacent to the replacement base (212 and the inward turned flange are on top of and touching the base 212 for insertion of fasteners 36, figure 4).
Claims 1-3, 5, 13, 14, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Harrison (US No. 11690446).
Regarding claim 1, Harrison discloses a system for repairing an upright frame of an industrial pallet rack while the industrial pallet rack is in use and standing on a floor, the system comprising: a replacement column (78, figure 9) extending away from a replacement base (70); a first strut (60, figure 8) having a first end (at 76, figure 8) configured to be affixed to a face of the replacement column (78, figure 8) and a second end (connected at 92 and supported by 96, figure 8) configured to be affixed to a floor (at 96) at a point from the replacement base (70, figure 8) and from any existing column (columns of 24, 84, figure 2); and the replacement column (78) being configured to receive a first end (at 76) of a second strut (58, figure 8), such that a second end of the second strut (58) operatively terminates at an existing column (at 90 of column 98, note that the terms “existing” or “replacement” columns are all columns of the industrial rack in Harrison which all can be interchangeable. Consequently, “replacement” columns also can be “existing” columns after or before installations and vice versa, there’s no distinguishing features in the adjectives of “replacement” and “existing” columns or struts) of the industrial pallet rack, wherein the replacement column (78) is configured to be disposed opposite to the existing column (98).
Regarding claim 2, Harrison discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the second strut (58, figure 8) is an existing strut associated with the industrial pallet rack.
Regarding claim 3, Harrison discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising the second strut (58, figure 8).
Regarding claim 5, Harrison discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising a coupler (welding, figures 4 and 5), wherein the replacement column (78, figure 4) and base (70) are configured to be joined by a coupler (welding, figure 4).
Regarding claim 13, Harrison discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising a cuff (82 and 80 together form a cuff) configured to couple the replacement column (78) to an undamaged portion (24, figure 11) of a damaged column of the industrial pallet rack.
Regarding claim 14, Harrison discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the replacement column (78) and replacement base (70) is an integrated one-piece member.
Regarding claim 18, Harrison discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first strut (60, figure 5) is configured to be disposed on an angle with respect to the floor (where base 70 rest, figure 5).
Regarding claim 19, Harrison discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the second strut (58, figure 5) is configured to be disposed substantially parallel to the floor.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrison in view of Medina (US Patent No. 10457481).
Regarding claim 15, Harrison discloses the system of claim 1, except for wherein the replacement base includes a reinforcing member disposed between two components of the replacement base, the reinforcing member configured to provide additional support for the replacement column.
Medina (US Patent No. 10457481) discloses a system with a column (1) extending upward from a base (1.2, figure 2) a reinforcing member (11, figure 2) disposed between two components (1.1. and 1.2, figure 2) of the base, the reinforcing member configure to provide additional support to the column includes a gusset (11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to have modify the system of Harrison such that the replacement base includes a reinforcing member disposed between two components of the replacement base, the reinforcing member configured to provide additional support for the replacement column as taught by Medina.
Regarding claim 16, Harrison and Medina combined discloses the system of claim 15 as discussed above, wherein Medina teaches the reinforcing member (11, figure 2) includes a gusset.
Claim 20 is allowed.
Claims 4, 9, 12, and 17 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.
Claims 6-8, 10, 11, 23, 27, and 29-32 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 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the “brace 60 in Harrison is affixed to the rear baseplate 96” (page 2 of remarks) and is not in accordance with the amended claim 1. Examiner disagrees. the first strut (60, figure 8) having a first end (at 76, figure 8) configured to be affixed to a face of the replacement column (78, figure 8) and a second end (connected at 92 and supported by 96, figure 8) configured to be affixed to a floor (at 96) at a point from the replacement base (70, figure 8) and from any existing column (and is away from at least columns of 24, 84, figure 2).
Regarding claim 21, applicant argues that “claim 21 requires that the second replacement column is configured to be coupled to a first face of the first replacement column and configured to be coupled to the replacement plate. Klinger does not appear to teach such a second replacement column that is configured to be coupled to a first face of the first replacement column and configured to be coupled to the replacement plate. At best, Klinger appears to teach that the "reinforcement channel 130 is attached to the backwall or to the open end of the U-Shaped post replacement member 122." (remarks section, page 3). As applicant has stated, the channel 130 is attached to the backwall of replacement member 122 and thus they are attached.
Regarding new claim 33, applicant argues that Klinger does not teach a flange configured to be disposed touchingly adjacent to the replacement base. Examiner disagrees. As discussed above and reiterated here.
The second replacement column (230) having a flange (the inward turned flange parallel to the wall 239 of the channel 230, figure 5) that is perpendicular to a length (a horizontal length) of the second replacement column (230), wherein: the second replacement column is configured to be coupled to a first face (at 239) of the first replacement column (221), and the flange is configured to be disposed touchingly adjacent to the replacement base (212 and the inward turned flange are on top of and touching the base 212 for insertion of fasteners 36, figure 4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The remaining cited art of record further demonstrate industrial pallet rack with struts and columns.
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 Ko (Korie) H Chan whose telephone number is (571)272-6816. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday -Friday, 8:00 - 5:00 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jonathan Liu can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Ko H Chan/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Khc