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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11 and 13-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/17/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: for better claim construction and consistency throughout the claims the examiner suggests the following amendment:
Claim 21, lines 3-4: -- the first protrusion is oriented toward inner wall surfaces of the first clamping portion and the second clamping portion respectively--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: for better claim construction and consistency throughout the claims the examiner suggests the following amendment:
Claim 22, line 3: --direction of the vertical beams --. 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 1-10, 12, and 18-24 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.
Regarding claim 1, the following limitation “the first beam coupled at its two ends to the vertical beam” The applicant’s first beam is a horizontal beam that is coupled at two end to two vertical beams not the same one vertical beam. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 3, how does the “a first reinforcing portion” relate to the “at least one reinforcing portion” previously claimed in claim 2? Are they the same or different? It appears that the first reinforcing portion is a part of the “at least one reinforcing portion” previously claimed in claim 2. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the height-wise direction" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 7, the following limitation “respective two of the first beams” is unclear and confusing because claim 1 (which claim 7 depends from) only claims a single first beam, therefore how can one first beam now be two first beams? Does the applicant mean to claim “at least one first beam” in claim 1 instead? Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 10, the term “thin” is an indefinite and relative term. How can one determine what is thin or not thin? Appropriate corrections is required.
Regarding claim 19, how does the “a first vertical beam and a second vertical beam” relate to the vertical beam or vertical beams previously claimed in claim 1? Are they the same or are they different? The examiner suggests the following amendment for claim 19:
Claim 19: -- The storage rack of claim 1, characterized in further comprising a connecting member; wherein each vertical beam further comprises , wherein the connecting member connects the first vertical beam and the second vertical beam in sequence along length direction, the connecting member configured to restrict relative movement of the first vertical beam and the second vertical beam in a non-vertical direction.—Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2, 5-6, 8-9, 12, 18, and 20-24 are rejected as being rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saltzberg 2005/0103733.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Saltzberg discloses a storage rack (Fig 1), characterized in comprising vertical beams (Fig 1, #10) [0026], a first beam (Figs 1 & 4, #2) and a shelf (Fig 1, #12), the first beam (Figs 1 & 4, #2) coupled at its two ends to the vertical beams (Fig 1, #10)[0026] [0033], the first beam (Figs 1 & 4, #2) defining a support surface (Fig 4, #7) on which the shelf (Fig 1, #12) is placed.
Regarding claim 2, Saltzberg discloses the storage rack (Fig 1) characterized in that the first beam (Fig 4, #2) comprises at least one reinforcing portion (Fig 4, #8).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Saltzberg discloses the storage rack (Fig 1) characterized in that the first beam (Fig 4, #2) comprises a first reinforcing portion (Fig 4, #8) which is a first projection (Fig 4, #8) formed by bending a body of the first
Beam (Fig 4, #2), the first projection (Fig 4, #8) extending in a lengthwise direction of the first beam (Fig 4, #2), the first
projection (Fig 4, #8) comprising a first surface (annotated Fig 5 below) and a second surface (annotated Fig 5 below), which intersect each other.
In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, the limitation “formed by bending” has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e –first projection--, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. –bending --. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
PNG
media_image1.png
760
573
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Saltzberg discloses the storage rack characterized in that the support surface (Figs 4 & 5, #7) is formed by bending an upper margin of the first beam (Fig 4, #2) extending in the height-wise direction, or the first surface of the first projection serves as the support surface.
In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, the limitation “formed by bending” has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e –support surface--, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. –bending --. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
Regarding claim 5, Saltzberg discloses the storage rack characterized in that the first beam (Fig 4, #2) comprises a second reinforcing portion (Fig 4, #4) which is a second projection (Fig 4, #4) formed by rolling a lower margin of the first beam located away from the support surface (Fig 4, #7).
In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, the limitation “formed by rolling” has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e –second projection--, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. –rolling a lower margin --. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
Regarding claim 24, Saltzberg discloses the storage rack characterized in that the first beam (Fig 4, #2) is integrally formed by rolling.
In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, the limitation “formed by rolling” has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e –first beam--, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. –rolling--. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
Claims 1, 7-10, 12, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sabounjian 2015/0090683.
Regrading claim 1, as best understood, Sabounjian a storage rack (Fig 1, #10), characterized in comprising vertical beams (Fig 1, #12a & #12c), a first beam (Fig 1, #26) and a shelf (Figs 1 & 4, #76), the first beam (Fig 1, #26) coupled at its two ends to the vertical beams (Fig 1, #12a & #12c), the first beam (Fig 1, #26) defining a support surface (Figs 9 & 11, #36) on which the shelf (Figs 4 & 11, #76) is placed.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Sabounjian discloses the storage rack characterized in further comprising at least one second beam (Figs 8-10, #60) detachably coupled at its two ends to respective two of the first beams (Fig 10, #26).
Regarding claim 8, Sabounjian discloses the storage rack characterized in that the second beam (Fig 10, #60, rightmost) is provided at an end with a first locating member (Figs 8 & 9, #66), with the first beam (Figs 9 & 10, #26) being provided with a second locating member (Figs 9 & 10, #40, rightmost) at locations thereof where the first beam (Fig 10, #26) is to be coupled to the second beam (Fig 10, #60, rightmost), the first locating member (Figs 8 & 9, #66) detachably coupled to the second locating member (Figs 9 & 10, #40, rightmost).
Regarding claim 9, Sabounjian discloses the storage rack characterized in that the first locating member (Figs 8 & 9, #66) comprises a notch (Fig 8, #68) defining an opening (top end of the notch #68), wherein the second locating member (Figs 9 & 10, #40, rightmost) comprises a stud (Fig 9, #40) configured to be able to enter the notch (Fig 8, #68) through the opening (top end of the notch #68).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Sabounjian discloses the storage rack characterized in that the second beam (Fig 10, #60, rightmost) is provided at an end with an engagement portion (Fig 8, #64 or #66) in a form of thin sheet, wherein the notch (Fig 8, #68) is provided in the engagement portion (Fig 8, #64 or #66) .
Regarding claim 12, Sabounjian discloses the storage rack characterized in that the second beam (Fig 10, #60, rightmost) comprises a second beam body (Fig 8, #60) and at least one reinforcing portion (Fig 8, #62b) formed on the second beam body (Fig 8, #60).
Regarding claim 18, Sabounjian discloses the storage rack characterized in that the second locating member (Figs 9 & 10, #40, rightmost) is not located at middle of the first beams (Fig 10, #26).
Claims 1 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wojtowicz 2011/0272373.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Wojtowicz discloses a storage rack (Fig 1, #10), characterized in comprising vertical beams (Fig 1, #17 & #18), a first beam (Fig 1, #22) and a shelf (Fig 1, #12), the first beam (Fig 1, #22) coupled at its two ends to the vertical beams (Fig 1, #17 & #18), the first beam (Figs 1 & 2, #22) defining a support surface (Fig 2, #43) on which the shelf (Fig 1, #12) is placed.
Regarding claim 19, as best understood, Wojtowicz discloses the storage rack characterized in further comprising a connecting member (Fig 2, #20); wherein each vertical beam (Fig 1, #17 & #18) further comprises a first vertical beam (Fig 2, #25) and a second vertical beam (Fig 2, #26), wherein the connecting member (Fig 2, #20) connects the first vertical beam (Fig 2, #25) and the second vertical beam (Fig 2, #26) in sequence along length direction, the connecting member (Fig 2, #20) configured to restrict relative movement of the first vertical beam (Fig 2, #25) and the second vertical beam (Fig 2, #26) in a non-vertical direction.
Regarding claim 20, Wojtowicz discloses the storage rack characterized in that the connecting member (Fig 2, #20) comprises a first body (Fig 2A, #50) and a second body (Fig 2A, #51), which substantially perpendicularly intersect each other, the first body (Fig 2A, #50) defining a first clamping portion (Fig 2A, #52) along its edge away from the second body (Fig 2A, #51), the second body (Fig 2A, #51) defining a second clamping portion (Fig 2A, #53) along its edge away from the first body (Fig 2A, #50), the first clamping portion (Fig 2A, #52) and the second clamping portion (Fig 2A, #53) both having U-shaped cross-sections and thus defining therein channels adapted for insertion of the first vertical beam (Fig 2, #25) and second vertical beam (Fiug 2, #26) therethrough.
Regarding claim 21, Wojtowicz discloses the storage rack characterized in that the first clamping portion (Fig 2A, #52) and the second clamping portion (Fig 2A, #53) are both provided therein with a first protrusion (Figs 2A & 3, #65), and the first protrusion (Figs 2A & 3, #65) is oriented toward inner wall surfaces of the first clamping portion (Fig 2A, #52) and the second clamping portion (Fig 2A, #53) respectively and used to stop the first vertical beam (Fig 2A, #25) and the second vertical beam (Fig 2A, #26) in position.
Regarding claim 22, Wojtowicz discloses the storage rack characterized in that the connecting member (Fig 2A, #20) further comprises a second protrusion (Fig 2A, #58 & #59), and the second protrusion (Fig 2A, #58 & #59) is formed by extensions (Fig 2A, #58 & #59) of intersecting portion of the first body (Fig 2A, #50) and the second body (Fig 2A, #51) in the lengthwise direction of the vertical beams (Fig 1, #17 & #18).
Regarding claim 23, Wojtowicz discloses the storage rack characterized in that the connecting member (Fig 2, #20) has a length h smaller than a distance H between a first slot (annotated Fig 2 below) in the first vertical beam (Fig 2, #25) and a second slot (annotated Fig 2 below) in the second vertical beam (Fig 2, #26), wherein the first slot (annotated Fig 2 below) is spaced from the second vertical beam (Fig 2, #26) by one slot (as shown in Fig 2), and the second slot (annotated Fig 2 below) is spaced from the first vertical beam (Fig 2, #25) by one slot (as shown in Fig 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
769
683
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saltzberg 2005/0103733 in view of Tsai 2017/0211604.
Regarding claim 6, Saltzberg has been discussed above but does not explicitly teach the storage rack characterized in that the second projection has a circularly curved cross-section.
Tsai discloses a first beam (Fig 11B, #12) that comprises a first reinforcing portion (Fig 11B, #131 & #132) which is a first projection (Fig 11B, #131 & #132) and a second reinforcing portion (Fig 11B, #122) which is a second projection (Fig 11B, #122); wherein the second projection (Fig 11B, #122) has a circularly curved cross-section (Fig 11B, #122).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second projection (Saltzberg, Fig 4, #4) of Saltzberg to have a circularly curved cross-section as taught by Tsai in order to make the first beam (Saltzberg, Fig 4, #2) of Saltzberg more aesthetically appealing. Further, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVIN K BARNETT whose telephone number is (571)270-1159. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-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, 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.
/DEVIN K BARNETT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights