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Claims 4-5, 8-9 and 11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention and/or Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 06/23/2026.
In the event that the Office does not accept the elected grouping of Species J and Species K, Applicant elects Species J (Fig. 8), with traverse and without waiver of the position that Species J and Species K are not patentably distinct and should be examined together. First, the present divisional application is directed to the curved-connecting- component invention. Pending claim 1 expressly requires "a connecting component connected to the horizontal component and to an upper end of the second vertical component, wherein the connecting component has a curved shape." Claims 2~11 depend from claim 1 and therefore require the same curved connecting component. Claim 12 recites a shelving system in which at least one of the beams is the support beam according to claim 1, and claim 13 depends from claim 12. Thus, each pending claim requires, directly or indirectly, the curved connecting component recited in claim 1. In contrast, several of the species identified in the Office Action correspond to embodiments in which the connecting component is straight and diagonally oriented rather than curved. Such species are not separately claimed in the presently pending claim set. Accordingly, the election requirement is overinclusive to the extent it requires election among species that are not embraced by the pending claims. The claimed subject matter should be evaluated based on the actual claim limitations, and the pending claims are focused on a support beam having a curved connecting component.
Second, Species J (Fig. 8) and Species K (Fig. 9) form a single grouping of patentably indistinct species. Both Species J and Species K disclose the same core beam architecture recited in claim 1: a first vertical component, a second vertical component positioned with the first vertical component in a shared vertical plane, a horizontal component connected to the first vertical component, a curved connecting component connected to the horizontal component and to an upper end of the second vertical component, and an extending component connected to a lower end of the second vertical component and having a first straight portion extending from a first end.
The only apparent difference between Species J and Species K is the particular contour of the curved connecting component, including the number or arrangement of inflection points or curved segments. This difference is already encompassed by the claim language. Claim 1 broadly requires that the connecting component "has a curved shape," and claim 3 further recites that the curved shape of the connecting component comprises "at least one inflection point." Species J and Species K are therefore alternative embodiments of the same curved-connecting-component invention, not separate inventions requiring separate searches or separate examination. Third, the optional dependent-claim features do not justify species restriction away from the elected curved-connecting-component grouping. Claims 4~11 add optional details concerning the extending component, openings, and end trimming. These features do not replace or negate the curved connecting component required by claim 1. Rather, they further define optional structural implementations of the same support beam. The specification also confirms that variations of the extending component may be applied to the eighth and ninth embodiments. Therefore, claims 4~11 should be examined as dependent claims requiring all limitations of claim 1, rather than treated as claims to unrelated species. Fourth, the Office Action has not established a sufficient serious search or examination burden for examining the pending claims together. The Office Action states generally that the species "each comprise different element and different configurations of a support beam" and that the species "each require a different field of search and/or different text inquiries." However, as applied to the pending claim set, the claims share the same essential claimed structure: a support beam having a curved connecting component. The relevant search would focus on support beams and shelving systems having the claimed curved connecting component and related beam features. The Office Action does not identify any materially different field of search, classification, mode of operation, or examination issue that would be required to examine Species J and Species K, or claims 1~13, together. Fifth, the prosecution history of the parent application supports examination of the curved-connecting-component species as a group in this divisional application. In the parent application, the claims were divided between a first group directed to a diagonal connecting component and a second group directed to a curved connecting component. The present divisional application was filed to pursue the curved-connecting-component subject matter. Accordingly, requiring a further species restriction that fragments the
curved-connecting-component embodiments into separate species would be inconsistent with the purpose of this divisional filing and would unnecessarily divide closely related embodiments of the same claimed invention. This is not found persuasive because the applicant’s arguments that the embodiments of Fig 8 and Fig 9 share the some defining structural features according to the claim language only means that some of current claims maybe considered generic to Figs 8 and 9. However, just because claim 1 may be generic to the embodiments shown in Figs 8 and 9 does not mean that Fig 8 and Fig 9 can not be restricted from each other. Further, the applicant still has several dependent claims (claims 3, 8-9, and 11) that are not generic to Species J (Fig 8) and directed to other specific individual species as explained in detail below. Further, the examiner maintains that Species J (Fig 8) and Species K (Fig 9) are patentably distinct from each other. The different structural elements of the connecting component make the species Species J (Fig 8) and Species K (Fig 9) patentably distinct. A single support beam can not have simultaneously the connecting component shape of Fig 8 and the connecting component shape of Fig 9 at the same time. It has to be one shape or the other. A single connecting component of a shelf support beam could only be shaped as Species J (Fig 8, #141) or Species C (Fig 9, #141-#143) at a given moment of time. If the applicant maintains that Species J (Fig 8) and Species K (Fig 9) are not patentably then upon examination if the examiner finds art that reads on (or has the same shape of ) either of Species J (Fig 8) or Species K (Fig 9) the other one of Species J (Fig 8) or Species K (Fig 9) will be automatically not be allowable since Species K (Fig 9) and Species J (Fig 8) are not patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 4, unelected Species E (Fig 4A) and unelected Species F (Fig 4B) are the only species embodiments that have an extending component that further has a second straight portion #154 [0057]. Claim 4 is not generic and are patentably distinct claims that are only directed to unelected Species E (Fig 4A) and unelected Species F (Fig 4B).
Claim 5 depends from claim 4 and is therefore also withdrawn.
Regarding claim 8, unelected Species G (Fig 5) is the only embodiment that has a being point [0058]. Claim 8 is not generic and is a patentably distinct claim that is only directed to unelected Species G (Fig 5).
Regarding claim 9, unelected Species F (Fig 4B) is the only species embodiment that have an extending component that further has flat portion perpendicular to the second vertical component. Claim 9 is not generic and is a patentably distinct claim that is only directed to unelected Species F (Fig 4B).
Regarding claim 11, unelected Species M (Fig 10) is the only embodiment where the horizontal component and the connecting component are trimmed off at two ends of the support beam at an angle that is not perpendicular to the support beam [0063]. Claim 11 is not generic and is a patentably distinct claim that is only directed to unelected Species M (Fig 10).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 objected to because of the following informalities: for better claim construction and consistency throughout the claims the examiner suggests the following amendment:
Claim 12, line 5: -- support beam[[s]] according to claim 1--. 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 12 and 13 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 12, how does the “at least two beams” claimed in line 6 of claim 12 relate to the “plurality of beams” previously claimed in line 2 of the claim? Are they the same or different? Is the applicant claiming “at least two new beams” in line 6 that are separate from the “plurality of beams” claimed in line 2? Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 13, how does the “two opposite support beams” claimed in claim 13 relate to the “at least two beams” claimed in line 6 of claim 12 and the “plurality of beams” previously claimed in line 2 of claim 12? Are they the same or different? Is the applicant claiming “at least two new opposite support beams” in line 12 that are separate from the “at least two beams” and the “plurality of beams” claimed in claim 12? Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3, 6-7, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eustace 2010/0084354.
Regarding claim 1, Eustace discloses a support beam (Figs 6 & 9, #2) for supporting a shelf assembly, comprising:
a first vertical component (Fig 9, #22);
a second vertical component (Fig 9, #28), positioned with the first vertical component (Fig 9, #22) in a shared vertical plane;
a horizontal component (Fig 9, #24) connected to the first vertical component (Fig 9, #22);
a connecting component (annotated Fig 9 below) connected to the horizontal component (Fig 9, #24) and to an upper end of the second vertical component (Fig 9, #28), wherein the connecting component (annotated Fig 9 below) has a curevd shape (annotated Fig 9 below); and
an extending component (annotated Fig 9 below) having a first end (annotated Fig 9 below) and a second end (annotated Fig 9 below) and being connected to a lower end of the second vertical component (annotated Fig 9 below) at the second end (as shown in Fig 9), wherein the extending component has a first straight portion (annotated Fig 9 below) extending from the first end, and an angle between an extending direction of the first straight portion (annotated Fig 9 below) and that of the second vertical component (annotated Fig 9 below) is between 0 and 145 degrees (0 degrees).
PNG
media_image1.png
830
1043
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
707
927
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
735
951
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
864
1035
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Eustace discloses the support beam wherein the curved shape (annotated Fig 9 above) of the connecting component (annotated Fig 9 above) comprises at least one inflection point (annotated Fig 9 above).
Regarding claim 6, Eustace discloses the support beam according wherein the extending component (annotated Fig 9 above) further has a U shape section (annotated Fig 9 above) between the first straight portion (annotated Fig 9 above) and the second end (annotated Fig 9 above).
Regarding claim 7, Eustace discloses the support beam wherein the extending component (annotated Fig 9 above) further has at least one arc section (annotated Fig 9 above) between the first straight portion (annotated Fig 9 above) and the second end (annotated Fig 9 above).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, Eustace discloses a shelving system (Figs 3-6) [0035]-[0037] & [0039], comprising:
a plurality of corner posts (Figs 3-6, #1) [0035] [0039];
a plurality of beams (Figs 3-6, #2) [0035] [0039], wherein each beam (Figs 3-6, #2) [0035] [0039] is configured to be adjustably coupled to a pair of corner posts (Figs 3-6, #1) [0035] [0039] and at least one of the beams (Figs 3-6, #2) [0035] [0039] is the support beam according to claim 1; and
at least one shelf (Figs 3-6, #5) configured to rest on at least two beams (Figs 3-6, #2) [0036] [0039] from the plurality of beams (Figs 3-6, #2) [0035] [0039].
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Eustace discloses the shelving system further comprising at least one fixing beam (Fig 3, #40) [0037] [0039] fixed on two opposite support beams (Figs 3-6, #2) [0035][0037] [0039] (as shown in Fig 3).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eustace 2010/0084354.
Regarding claim 2, the first embodiment (Eustace, Figs 5-9) of Eustace has been discussed above but does not explicitly teach wherein a material of the support beam comprises metal or plastic.
Eustace discloses a second embodiment (Eustace, Figs 2a-2c) of a support beam (Eustace, Figs 2a-2c, #2) wherein a material of the support beam (Eustace, Figs 2a-2c, #2) comprises metal (Eustace, [0004]) or plastic.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate the support beam (Eustace, Figs 5-6, #2) of the first embodiment (Eustace, Figs 5-9) of Eustace to be made of metal as taught by a second embodiment (Eustace, Figs 2a-2c) of Eustace (Eustace, [0004]) because the substitution of one known material for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In addition, metal is well known in the art for being an easily accessible, inexpensive, and durable material.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eustace 2010/0084354 in view of Li 11,344,114.
Regarding claim 10, Eustace disclose the support beam, wherein each of the first vertical component (Fig 9, #22) and the second vertical component (annotated Fig 9 above) at two ends of the support beam (Figs 5-6 & 9, #2) further has a rivet (Fig 8, #30 & #32), respectively, for riveting.
Eustace has been discussed above but does not explicitly teach wherein each of the first vertical component and the second vertical component at two ends of the support beam further has an opening, respectively, for receive the rivets.
Li discloses a support beam (Figs 1 & 2, #2) wherein at least a vertical
component (shown in Fig 2) of the support beam (Figs 1 & 2, #2) at two ends of the support beam (Figs 1 & 2, #2) further has an opening (Fig 2, #7), respectively, for receiving rivets (Fig 2, #6) (col 3, lines 39-40).
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 first vertical component (Eustace, Fig 9, #22) of Eustace and the second vertical component (Eustace, annotated Fig 9 above) of Eustace to each have an opening or hole (Li, Fig 2, #7) that receives the rivets (Eustace, Fig 8, #30 & #32) therethrough as taught by Li because the substitution of one known rivet mounting means (i.e. inserting rivets through holes in the support beam or gluing/welding rivets to the support beam) for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6-7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madsen 1,829,009 in view of Tsai 2017/0238703.
Regarding claim 1, Madsen discloses a support beam (Fig 1, A) for supporting a shelf assembly (Figs 2 & 4, #20), comprising:
a first vertical component (Figs 1 & 4, #12);
a second vertical component (Figs 1 & 4, #18), positioned with the first vertical component (Figs 1 & 4, #12) in a shared vertical plane;
a horizontal component (Figs 1 & 4, #14) connected to the first vertical component (Figs 1 & 4, #12);
a connecting component (annotated Fig 1 below) connected to the horizontal component (Figs 1 & 4, #14) and to an upper end of the second vertical component (Figs 1 & 4, #18), wherein the connecting component (annotated Fig 1 below) has a curved shape (annotated Fig 1 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
554
652
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
554
584
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
554
621
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Madsen has been discussed above but does not explicitly teach an extending component having a first end and a second end and being connected to a lower end of the second vertical component at the second end, wherein the extending component has a first straight portion extending from the first end, and an angle between an extending direction of the first straight portion and that of the second vertical component is between 0 and 145 degrees (claim 1).
Tsai discloses a support beam (Fig 6, #313) for supporting a shelf assembly, comprising:
a first vertical component;
a second vertical component (annotated Fig 6 below), positioned with the first vertical component (annotated Fig 6 below) in a shared vertical plane;
a horizontal component (Fig 6, #3132) connected to the first vertical component (annotated Fig 6 below);
and an extending component (annotated Fig 6 below) having a first end (annotated Fig 6 below) and a second end (annotated Fig 6 below) and being connected to a lower end of the second vertical component (annotated Fig 6 below) at the second end (annotated Fig 6 below), wherein the extending component (annotated Fig 6 below) has a first straight portion (annotated Fig 6 below) extending from the first end (annotated Fig 6 below), and an angle between an extending direction of the first straight portion (annotated Fig 6 below) and that of the second vertical component (annotated Fig 6 below) is between 0 and 145 degrees (0 degrees).
PNG
media_image8.png
669
921
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
734
952
media_image9.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach an extending component (Tsai, annotated Fig 6 above) to the lower end of the second vertical component (Madsen, Fig 1, #18) of Madsen in order to make the support beam (Madsen, Fig 1) of Madsen more strudy by reinforcing the lower portion of the support beam (Madsen, Fig 1) to prevent any unwanted twisting movement or torque (Tsai, [0047]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Madsen discloses the support beam wherein the curved shape (Madsen, annotated Fig 1 above) of the connecting component comprises at least one inflection point (Madsen, annotated Fig 1 above).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, modified Madsen discloses the support beam wherein the extending component (Tsai, annotated Fig 6 above) further has a U shape section (Tsai, annotated Fig 6 below) between the first straight portion (Tsai, annotated Fig 6 above) and the second end (Tsai, annotated Fig 6 above).
PNG
media_image10.png
672
847
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, modified Madsen discloses the support beam wherein the extending component (Tsai, annotated Fig 6 above) further has at least one arc section (Tsai, annotated Fig 6 above) between the first straight portion (Tsai, annotated Fig 6 above) and the second end (Tsai, annotated Fig 6 above).
Regarding claim 12, modified Madsen discloses a shelving system (Madsen, Fig 2), comprising: a plurality of corner posts (Madsen, Fig 2, #12 & #22); a plurality of beams (Madsen, Fig 1, A or #14, left & right), wherein each beam (Madsen, Fig 1, A or #14, left & right) is configured to be adjustably coupled to a pair of corner posts (Madsen, Fig 2, #12 & #22) and at least one of the beams (Madsen, Fig 1, A or #14, left or right) is the support beam according to claim 1; and at least one shelf (Madsen, Fig 1, A or #20) configured to rest on at least two of the plurality of beams (Madsen, Fig 1, A or #14, left & right).
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Madsen 1,829,009 and Tsai 2017/0238703; and further in view of Eustace 2010/0084354.
Regarding claim 2, modified Madsen has been discussed above but does not explicitly teach wherein a material of the support beam comprises metal or plastic.
Eustace discloses a support beam (Eustace, Figs 2a-2c, #2) wherein a material of the support beam (Eustace, Figs 2a-2c, #2) comprises metal (Eustace, [0004]) or plastic.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate the support beam (Madsen, Fig 1) of modified Madsen to be made of metal as taught by Eustace (Eustace, [0004]) because the substitution of one known material for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In addition, metal is well known in the art for being an easily accessible, inexpensive, and durable material.
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, modified Madsen has been discussed above but does not explicitly teach at least one fixing beam fixed on two of the plurality of beams that are arranged opposite each other in the shelving system.
Eustace discloses the shelving system further comprising at least one fixing beam (Eustace, Fig 3, #40) (Eustace, [0037] [0039]) fixed on two of a plurality of beams (Eustace, Figs 3-6, #2) (Eustace, [0035][0037] [0039]) that are arranged opposite each other in the shelving system (Eustace, as shown in Figs 2 & 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach a fixing beam (Eustace, Fig 3, #40) (Eustace, [0037] [0039]) to two of the plurality of beams (Madsen, Fig 1, A or #14, left & right) of modified Madsen in order to provide more support for the shelf (Madsen, Fig 2, #20) of modified Madsen so that the shelf Madsen, Fig 2, #20) of modified Madsen can support more weight.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Madsen 1,829,009 and Tsai 2017/0238703; and further in view of
Eustace 2010/008435 and Li 11,344,114.
Regarding claim 10, modified Madsen disclose the support beam, wherein the first vertical component (Figs 1 & 4, #12) further has a pin (Fig 1, #10).
Modified Madsen has been discussed above but does not explicitly teach wherein each of the first vertical component and the second vertical component at two ends of the support beam further has an opening, respectively, for receiving rivets for riveting.
Eustace discloses the support beam, wherein each of a first vertical component (Fig 9, #22) and a second vertical component (annotated Fig 9 above) at two ends of the support beam (Figs 5-6 & 9, #2) further has a rivet (Fig 8, #30 & #32), respectively, for riveting.
Li discloses a support beam (Figs 1 & 2, #2) wherein at least a vertical
component (shown in Fig 2) of the support beam (Figs 1 & 2, #2) at two ends of the support beam (Figs 1 & 2, #2) further has an opening (Fig 2, #7), respectively, for receiving rivets (Fig 2, #6) (col 3, lines 39-40).
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 first vertical component (Madsen, Fig 9, #22) of modified Madsen and the second vertical component (Madsen, Figs 1 & 4, #18) of Eustace to each have an opening or hole (Li, Fig 2, #7) that receives rivets (Eustace, Fig 8, #30 & #32) therethrough as taught by Li and Eustace because the substitution of one known rivet mounting means (i.e. inserting rivets through holes in the support beam or gluing/welding rivets to the support beam) for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
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 11am-7:30pm.
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, 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 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