DETAILED ACTION
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young, Jr. (US Pat. No. 3,915,097) in view of Burgess (US Pat. No. 6,112,918).
In regards to claim 1, Young teaches a foldable seasoning rack, comprising a rear plate (12), a first side guardrail (13), a second side guardrail (14), an upper supporting plate (upper 26), a middle supporting plate (middle 26), a lower supporting plate (lower 26), wherein the first side guardrail, the second side guardrail, and the rear plate are all connected by two first movable hinges (16) (Col 2, Lines 13-21); two sides of the upper supporting plate, two sides of the middle supporting plate, and two sides of the lower supporting plate are respectively connected to the rear plate by two second movable hinges (36) in a hinged manner (Col 3, Lines 7-24); each of the first side guardrail, the second side guardrail, and the rear plate comprises at least three cross rods (15, 19) and at least three vertical rods (17, 18, 23) intersecting with the at least three cross rods respectively to form a lattice patten, the first upper supporting plate (upper 26) is inclined; and upper hooks (21) are fixedly arranged at front positions of upper sides of opposite side end surfaces of the first side guardrail and the second side guardrail; middle hooks (21) are fixedly arranged at front positions, close to the middle, of the opposite side end surfaces of the first side guardrail and the second side guardrail; and lower hooks (21) are fixedly arranged at front positions of lower sides of the opposite side end surfaces of the first side guardrail and the second side guardrail.
Young does not teach a plurality of dense nets. Burgess teaches plates (i.e.; shelves) including dense nets (i.e.; expanded wire metal mesh 60).
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 Young’s rack to comprise a plurality of dense nets as taught by Burgess. The motivation would be for the purpose of preventing objects from falling through the shelves.
In regards to claim 2, modified Young teaches plastic pads (Young: 25) are fixedly arranged at lower ends of the first side guardrail (Young: 13) and the second side guardrail (Young: 14); and the first side guardrail and the second side guardrail are respectively arranged on two sides of the rear plate (Young: 12).
In regards to claim 3, in modifying Young, Burgess teaches the plurality of dense nets (Burgess: 60) are fixedly arranged on inner walls of the two sides of the upper supporting plate, inner walls of the two sides of the middle supporting plate, and inner walls of the two sides of the lower supporting plate (i.e.; Burgess teaches welding the mesh to the cross-bars 44, 46; Col 3, Lines 20-23; see the mesh 60 fixed between the inside surfaces of the cross-bars in Fig. 1).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young, Jr. (US Pat. No. 3,915,097) and Burgess (US Pat. No. 6,112,918), and in further view of Rabbany et al. (US Pat. No. 10,470,566 B1).
In regards to claims 4-6, Young, modified by Burgess, teaches the upper supporting plate (Young: 26) is arranged on an upper side of a front end surface of the rear plate (Young: 12), and the upper supporting plate is positioned on upper end surfaces of the two upper hooks (Young: 21) (claim 4); the middle supporting plate (Young: 26) is arranged at a lower middle position of a front end surface of the rear plate, and the middle supporting plate is positioned on upper end surfaces of the two middle hooks (Young: 21) (claim 5); and the lower supporting plate (Young: 26) is arranged on a lower side of a front end surface of the rear plate, and the lower supporting plate is positioned on upper end surfaces of the two lower hooks (Young: 21) (claim 6).
Young does not teach clamping the supporting plates on the upper end surfaces of the hooks. Rabbany teaches clamping supporting plates (20, 22, 24) on upper surfaces of hooks (clips 40, 41) (i.e.; shelves are snap-fit into the clips; Col 3, Lines 13-15).
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 Young’s rack to clamp the respective supporting plates into the upper surfaces of their respective hooks. The motivation would be for the purpose of holding the plates (i.e.; shelves) in place as taught by Rabbany (Col 3, Lines 13-15).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 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. The examiner now relies on the teachings of Young, Jr. in view of Burgess and Rabbany as discussed with respect to the claims above.
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 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