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 .
This correspondence is in response to applicant’s reply filed on 05/14/2026. Claims 1 and 4-20 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 1, 4-5, and 9-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia (U.S. Pat. 10960910).
Regarding claim 1, Garcia teaches 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).
With regards to claim 1, 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.”
Further regarding claim 1, 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 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 claim 9, 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 below).
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 claim 16, 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.
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.
Regarding claim 20, Garcia teaches 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(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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument that neither Garcia nor Salmon discloses the bidirectional punching-formed structure and coplanar end surface limitation of the present invention, and neither of them mentions or suggests the punching method which is the key technical feature of the present invention, the Examiner submits the following. 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.” If the novelty in the claimed invention lies in the process of making the device, the Examiner recommends that the Applicant files an Application, claiming the process of punching. Therefore, the rejections remain as stated both in the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 04/08/2026 and above.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the reference, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Garcia teaches the basis of the claimed invention as stated above. The “product by process” rationale is stated by the Examiner to emphasize that the determination of patentability is based on the product itself, not the process by which the product is made. Therefore, the rejections remain as stated 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 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-Aug-26
/TERRELL L MCKINNON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights