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 .
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 3-4 and 6 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 claims 3 and 6, how does the “two receiving elements” in claims 3 and 6 relate to the one receiving element previously claimed in claim 1? Is the one receiving element part of the two receiving elements in claim 3? Are the “two receiving elements” in claims 3 and 6 separate from the one receiving element previously claimed in claim 1 (i.e. are 3 receiving elements being claimed in claims 3 and 6)? Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 6, how does the “two breakthroughs” in claim 6 relate to the one breakthrough previously claimed in claim 5? Is the one breakthrough part of the two breakthroughs in claim 6? Are the “two breakthroughs” in claim 6 separate from the one breakthrough previously claimed in claim 5 (i.e. are 3 breakthroughs being claimed in claim 6)? Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is 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, 3, 5-6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Searby 4,173,934 or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Searby 4,173,934.
Regarding claim 1, Searby discloses a traverse (Fig 1, #12) capable of being used for a shelf for supporting a panel of the shelf, wherein the traverse (Fig 1, #12) has a side surface (annotated Fig 1 below) running parallel to the longitudinal axis of the traverse (Fig 1, #12) and a receiving element (Fig 1, #14) capable of being used for fastening the panel, and the receiving element (Fig 1, #14) is arranged on the side surface (annotated Fig 1 below) and has a section (annotated Fig 3 below) which is at a distance from the side surface (annotated Fig 1 below) and extends to a free-standing end (top end) (annotated Fig 3 below) of the receiving element (Fig 1, #14), and the receiving element (Fig 1, #14) inherently is integrally formed out of a material of the traverse (Fig 1, #12); wherein the receiving element (Fig 1, #14) has a recess (annotated Figs 1 & 3 below) running in a direction substantially vertical to the longitudinal axis and that is open at a top that is capable of being used for receiving the panel in a vertical direction.
PNG
media_image1.png
749
959
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
940
748
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In the alternative, if Searby discloses the invention except the receiving element is formed out of a material of the traverse.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the receiving element out of the same material of the traverse in order to save manufacturing and material costs.
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.
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Searby discloses the traverse (Fig 1, #12) wherein two receiving elements (Fig 1, #14) are arranged on the side surface (annotated Fig 1 above), wherein the free-standing ends (top end) (annotated Fig 3 above) of the two receiving elements (Fig 1, #14) lie in a plane that runs parallel to the side surface (annotated Fig 1 above) and are at a distance from one another within the plane.
Regarding claim 5, Searby discloses the traverse (Fig 1, #12), the traverse (Fig 1, #12) having a breakthrough (annotated Fig 3 above) which is created by the integral forming of the receiving element (Fig 1, #14) out of the material of the traverse (Fig 1, #12).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Searby discloses the traverse (Fig 1, #12) wherein two receiving elements (Fig 1, #14) are arranged on the side surface (annotated Fig 1 above), the traverse (Fig 1, #12) having two breakthroughs (annotated Fig 3 above) (each receiving element (Fig 1, #14) has a breakthrough (as shown in Fig 3), the two breakthroughs (annotated Fig 3 above) being at a distance from one another, so that a bridge (space between the breakthroughs) (annotated Fig 1 above) is formed between the breakthroughs (annotated Fig 3 above).
Regarding claim 9, Searby discloses a shelf (Fig 1, #12 & #15) with a traverse (Fig 1, #12) and at least one panel (Fig 1, #15), wherein the traverse (Fig 1, #12) has a side surface (annotated Fig 1 above) running parallel to a longitudinal axis of the traverse (Fig 1, #12) and a receiving element (Fig 1, #14) for fastening the panel (Fig 1, #15), and the receiving element (Fig 1, #14)
is arranged on the side surface (annotated Fig 1 above) and has a section (annotated Fig 3 above) which is at a distance from the side surface (annotated Fig 1 above) and extends to a free-standing end (top end) (annotated Fig 3 above) of the receiving element (Fig 1, #14), and the receiving element (Fig 1, #14) inherently is integrally formed out of a material of the traverse (Fig 1, #12).
In the alternative, if Searby discloses the invention except the receiving element is formed out of a material of the traverse.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the receiving element out of the same material of the traverse in order to save manufacturing and material costs.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shell 3,556,306.
Regarding claim 1, Shell discloses a traverse (Figs 1 & 2, #8a) capable of being used for a shelf for supporting at least one panel a panel of the shelf, wherein the traverse (Figs 1 & 2, #8a) has a side surface (inner side) running parallel to a longitudinal axis of the traverse (Figs 1 & 2, #8a) and a receiving element (Fig 2, #21) capable of being used for fastening the panel, and the receiving element (Fig 2, #21)
is arranged on the side surface (inner side) and has a section (Fig 2, #21b) which is at a distance from the side surface (inner side) (as shown in Fig 5) and extends to a free-standing end (top end) of the receiving element (Fig 2, #21), and the receiving element (Fig 2, #21) is integrally formed out of a material of the traverse (Figs 1 & 2, #8a), wherein the receiving element (Fig 2, #21) has a recess (Fig 2, #21c) running in a direction substantially vertical to the longitudinal axis and that is open at a
top that is capable of being used for receiving the panel in a vertical direction.
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Shell discloses the traverse wherein two receiving elements (Fig 2, #21, left and right) are arranged on the side surface (inner side), wherein the free-standing ends (top ends) of the two receiving elements (Fig 2, #21) lie in a plane (shown in Fig 5) that runs parallel to the side surface (inner surface) and are at a distance from one another within the plane.
Regarding claim 5, Shell discloses the traverse wherein the traverse (Fig 2, #8a) having a breakthrough (annotated Fig 2 below) which is created by the integral forming of the receiving element (Fig 2, #21) out of the material of the traverse (Fig 2, #8a).
PNG
media_image3.png
517
1194
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Shell discloses the traverse wherein two receiving elements (Fig 2, #21, left and right) are arranged on the side surface (inner side), the traverse (Fig 2, #8a) having two breakthroughs (annotated Fig 2 above),
the two breakthroughs (annotated Fig 2 above) being at a distance from one another, so that a bridge (voided space) is formed between the breakthroughs (annotated Fig 2 above).
Regarding claim 9, Shell discloses a shelf (Fig 1, #10) with a traverse (Figs 1 & 2, #8a) and a panel (Fig 2, #23), wherein the traverse (Figs 1 & 2, #8a) has a side surface (inner side) running parallel to a longitudinal axis of the traverse (Figs 1 & 2, #8a) and a receiving element (Fig 2, #21) for fastening the panel (Fig 2, #23), and the receiving element (Fig 2, #21) is arranged on the side surface (inner side) and has a section (Figs 2 & 5, #21b) which is at a distance from the side surface (inner side) (as shown in Fig 5) and extends to a free-standing end (top end) of the receiving element (Fig 2, #21), and the receiving element (Fig 2, #21) is integrally formed out of a material of the traverse (Figs 1 & 2, #8a).
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, and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Searby 4,173,934 in view of Shell 3,556,306.
Regarding claim 1, in another interpretation, Searby discloses a traverse (Fig 1, #12) capable of being used for a shelf for supporting a panel of the shelf, wherein the traverse (Fig 1, #12) has a side surface (annotated Fig 1 below) running parallel to a longitudinal axis of the traverse (Fig 1, #12) and a receiving element (Fig 1, #14) capable of being used for fastening the panel, and the receiving element (Fig 1, #14) is arranged on the side surface (annotated Fig 1 below) and has a section (annotated Fig 3 below) which is at a distance from the side surface (annotated Fig 1 below) and extends to a free-standing end (top end) (annotated Fig 3 below) of the receiving element (Fig 1, #14), and the receiving element (Fig 1, #14) inherently is integrally formed out of a material of the traverse (Fig 1, #12).
PNG
media_image4.png
844
974
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
672
585
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In the alternative, if Searby discloses the invention except the receiving element is formed out of a material of the traverse.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the receiving element out of the same material of the traverse in order to save manufacturing and material costs.
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.
Searby has been discussed above but does not explicitly teach wherein the receiving element has a recess running in a direction substantially vertical to the longitudinal axis and that is open at a top for receiving the panel in the vertical direction.
Shell discloses a receiving element (Fig 2, #21) that has a recess (Fig 2, #21c) running in a direction substantially vertical to a horizontal axis and that is open at a top and capable of being used for receiving a panel in the vertical direction.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a recess (Shell, Fig 2, #21c) through the top of the receiving element (Searby, Fig 1, #14) of Searby in order to make the receiving element more aesthetically appealing and reduce the weight of the receiving element. 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.
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, modified Searby discloses the traverse (Searby, Fig 1, #12) wherein two receiving elements (Searby, Fig 1, #14) are arranged on the side surface (Searby, annotated Fig 1 above), wherein the free-standing ends (top end) (Searby, annotated Fig 3 above) of the two receiving elements (Searby, Fig 1, #14) lie in a plane that runs parallel to the side surface (Searby, annotated Fig 1 above) and are at a distance from one another within the plane.
Regarding claim 5, modified Searby discloses the traverse (Searby, Fig 1, #12), the traverse (Searby, Fig 1, #12) having a breakthrough (Searby, annotated Fig 3 above) (Searby, annotated Fig 1 above) which is created by the integral forming of the receiving element (Searby, Fig 1, #14) out of the material of the traverse (Searby, Fig 1, #12).
Regarding claim 6, modified Searby discloses the traverse (Searby, Fig 1, #12) wherein two of the receiving elements (Searby, Fig 1, #14) are arranged on the side surface (Searby, annotated Fig 1 above), the traverse (Searby, Fig 1, #12) having two of the breakthroughs (Searby, annotated Fig 1 above), the two breakthroughs (Searby, annotated Fig 1 above) being at a distance from one another, so that a bridge (space between the breakthroughs) (Searby, annotated Fig 1 above) is formed between the breakthroughs (Searby, annotated Fig 1 above).
Claims 1, 3, and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Searby 4,173,934 in view of Gruber 6,105,798 and Shell 3,556,306.
Regarding claim 1, in another interpretation, Searby discloses a traverse (Fig 1, #12) capable of being used for a shelf for supporting a panel of the shelf, wherein the traverse (Fig 1, #12) has a side surface (annotated Fig 1 below) running parallel to a longitudinal axis of the traverse (Fig 1, #12) and a receiving element (Fig 1, #14) capable of being used for fastening the panel, and the receiving element (Fig 1, #14) is arranged on the side surface (annotated Fig 1 below) and has a section (annotated Fig 3 below) which is at a distance from the side surface (annotated Fig 1 below) and extends to a free-standing end (top end) (annotated Fig 3 below) of the receiving element (Fig 1, #14), and the receiving element (Fig 1, #14) inherently is integrally formed out of a material of the traverse (Fig 1, #12).
PNG
media_image4.png
844
974
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
672
585
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In the alternative, if Searby discloses the invention except the receiving element is formed out of a material of the traverse.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the receiving element out of the same material of the traverse in order to save manufacturing and material costs.
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.
Searby has been discussed above but does not explicitly teach wherein the receiving element has a recess running in a direction substantially vertical to the longitudinal axis and that is open at a top for receiving the panel in the vertical direction.
Gruber discloses a receiving element (annotated Fig 9 below) that has a recess (annotated Fig 9 below) running in a direction substantially vertical to a horizontal axis and that is open at a top for receiving a panel (Figs 8 & 9, #54a) in the vertical direction.
PNG
media_image6.png
685
970
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Shell teaches that it is well known in the art for a receiving element (Fig 2, #21) that receives a portion (Fig 2, #23) of a shelf or beam (Fig 2, #12) in a clamping manner (similar to the receiving element (Searby, Fig 1, #14) of Searby) to have a recess (Fig 2, #21c) running in a direction substantially vertical to a horizontal axis and that is open at a top that is capable of receiving a panel in the vertical direction.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a recess (Gruber, annotated Fig 9 above) through the top of the receiving element (Searby, Fig 1, #14) of Searby in order to enable the receiving element(s) (Searby, Fig 1, #14) of Searby to receiving a leg or panel (Gruber, Figs 8 & 9, #54A) of a support beam (Gruber, Figs 8 & 9, #34) which will make the traverse (Searby, Fig 1, #12) of Searby more versatile by enabling it to support a shelf (Searby, Fig 1, #15), a support beam (Gruber, Figs 8 & 9, #34), and/or a support beam (Gruber, Figs 8 & 9, #34) underneath a shelf (Searby, Fig 1, #15) which would make the shelf (Searby, Fig 1, #15) more sturdy and strong to support heavier items thereon. Further the recess (Gruber, annotated Fig 9 above) will make the receiving element (Searby, Fig 1, #14) of Searby more aesthetically appealing and reduce the weight of the receiving element. 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. Further, Shell teaches that it is well known in the art for a receiving element (Shell, Fig 2, #21) that receives a portion (Shell, Fig 2, #23) of a shelf or beam (Shell, Fig 2, #12) in a clamping manner (similar to the receiving element (Shell, Searby, Fig 1, #14) of Searby) to have a recess (Shell, Fig 2, #21c) running in a direction substantially vertical to a horizontal axis and that is open at a top that is capable of receiving a panel in the vertical direction.
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, modified Searby discloses the traverse (Searby, Fig 1, #12) wherein two receiving elements (Searby, Fig 1, #14) are arranged on the side surface (Searby, annotated Fig 1 above), wherein the free-standing ends (top end) (Searby, annotated Fig 3 above) of the two receiving elements (Searby, Fig 1, #14) lie in a plane that runs parallel to the side surface (Searby, annotated Fig 1 above) and are at a distance from one another within the plane.
Regarding claim 5, modified Searby discloses the traverse (Searby, Fig 1, #12), the traverse (Searby, Fig 1, #12) having a breakthrough (Searby, annotated Fig 3 above) (Searby, annotated Fig 1 above) which is created by the integral forming of the receiving element (Searby, Fig 1, #14) out of the material of the traverse (Searby, Fig 1, #12).
Regarding claim 6, modified Searby discloses the traverse (Searby, Fig 1, #12) wherein two of the receiving elements (Searby, Fig 1, #14) are arranged on the side surface (Searby, annotated Fig 1 above), the traverse (Searby, Fig 1, #12) having two of the breakthroughs (Searby, annotated Fig 1 above), the two breakthroughs (Searby, annotated Fig 1 above) being at a distance from one another, so that a bridge (space between the breakthroughs) (Searby, annotated Fig 1 above) is formed between the breakthroughs (Searby, annotated Fig 1 above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 8 are allowed.
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 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