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 .
The following correspondence is a non-final Office Action for application # 18929074, entitled: SHELF SUPPORTING SLIDING RAIL, filed on 10/28/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 9, 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Garcia (U.S. Pat. 10960910).
Regarding claim 1, Garcia discloses a shelf supporting sliding rail 1301, comprising a sliding rail body (as seen in Fig. 6D), where protrusions (shown in Fig. 6D below) and recessed portions 6401-5 distributed in an array in a length direction are arranged on a front surface of the sliding rail body, the protrusions and the recessed portions 6401-5 are arranged in a spaced manner, and the protrusions are in close connection to the recessed portions 6401-5 adjacent to the protrusions above to form a locking position where a shelf mounting buckle is locked (see Fig. 6B).
Regarding claim 3, Garcia discloses the shelf supporting sliding rail, where an upper end surface of each of the protrusions and a lower end surface of each of the recessed portions 6401-5 are located in a same plane (as seen in Fig. 6B).
Regarding claim 9, Garcia discloses the shelf supporting sliding rail, where a section of each of the protrusions is in a shape of one or more of a trapezoid, an arc, and a sharp angle, each of the recessed portions 6401-5 is one or more of a trapezoidal recess, an arc-shaped recess, and a sharp angle-shaped recess, and the shape of each of the protrusions that forms the locking position is the same as or different from the shape of each of the recessed portions 6401-5 (as seen in Fig. 6D below).
Regarding claim 16, Garcia discloses the shelf supporting sliding rail, where forward protruding sliding locking edges 1342,1372 arranged in the length direction are arranged at left and right ends of the sliding rail body (as seen in Fig. 6E), through which the shelf mounting buckle is slidably assembled on the sliding rail body.
Regarding claim 20, Garcia discloses the shelf supporting sliding rail, where the sliding locking edge 1342,1372 is L-shaped (as seen in Fig. 6E).
PNG
media_image1.png
384
990
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2, 4-5, 10-15, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia.
Regarding claim 2, Garcia is discussed above, and teaches the shelf supporting sliding rail, but fails to explicitly teach where each of the protrusions is a protruded deformation portion formed on the front surface by punching from a back surface of the sliding rail body, and each of the recessed portions 6401-5 is a backward recessed deformation portion by punching from the front surface of the sliding rail body.
The Examiner notes that the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, section 2113, states: “[E]ven 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 does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.”
Regarding claim 4, Garcia teaches the shelf supporting sliding rail, where an upper end surface of each of the protrusions and a lower end surface of each of the recessed portions 6401-5 are located in a same plane (as seen in Fig. 6B).
Regarding claim 5, Garcia teaches the shelf supporting sliding rail, where a flange 625 arranged in the length direction is arranged on the back surface of the sliding rail body (as seen in Fig. 6F), and a top surface of the protruded deformation portion formed by each of the recessed portions 6401-5 on the back surface of the sliding rail body is flush with the flange 625 or lower than the flange 625 (as seen in Fig. 6F).
Regarding claims 10-11, Garcia teaches the shelf supporting sliding rail, where a section of each of the protrusions is in a shape of one or more of a trapezoid, an arc, and a sharp angle, each of the recessed portions 6401-5 is one or more of a trapezoidal recess, an arc-shaped recess, and a sharp angle-shaped recess, and the shape of each of the protrusions that forms the locking position is the same as or different from the shape of each of the recessed portions 6401-5 (as seen in Fig. 6D).
Regarding claims 12-14, Garcia is discussed above, and teaches the shelf supporting sliding rail above. However, Garcia fails to teach where the sliding rail body is an aluminum strip or an aluminum alloy strip.
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 shelf supporting sliding rail of Garcia to be made of aluminum or an aluminum alloy, because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense (see MPEP 2141, III.(E)).
Regarding claim 15, Garcia teaches the shelf supporting sliding rail, where the protrusions and recessed portions 6401-5 that are adjacent are in close connection, and openings are formed at connections (as seen in Fig. 6D).
Regarding claims 17-19, Garcia teaches the shelf supporting sliding rail, where forward protruding sliding locking edges 1342,1372 arranged in the length direction are arranged at left and right ends of the sliding rail body (as seen in Fig. 6E), through which the shelf mounting buckle is slidably assembled on the sliding rail body.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia in view of Salmon et al. (U.S. Pub. 20100219144).
Regarding claims 6-8, Garcia is discussed above, and teaches the shelf supporting sliding rail above. However, Garcia fails to teach where a mounting hole is formed in each of the recessed portions corresponding to the sliding rail body. Salmon teaches a shelf supporting sliding rail (as shown in Fig. 5), having protrusions and recesses (as seen in the cutaway profile of the rail in Fig. 5), and further comprising mounting holes 56 formed in the recessed portions (as seen in Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide holes in the surface of the shelf supporting sliding rail of Garcia, in order to provide an opening for aligning fasteners, such as screws so that the user may drive the fastener through the rail and into a support, as taught to be desirable by Salmon (see discussion in para. [0041], lines 3-6).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In addition to the reference to Garcia and Salmon above, the Examiner submits the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892). The cited prior art discloses mounting rails for drawers, and planar surfaces having recessions and protrusions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL D MCDUFFIE whose telephone number is (571)272-3832. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8AM-4:30PM.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
/Michael McDuffie/Examiner, Art Unit 3632 3-Apr-26
/TERRELL L MCKINNON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3632