DETAILED ACTION
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 & 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruse et al., [US 2014/0353271] in view of Webb [US 6,783,012]. Kruse teaches of an expansion mesh (fig. 1), comprising: a mesh panel (such as upper / lower (21) for instance), comprising a square frame (note fig. 3A) surrounded by four support side frames (such as (21S1, 21S2, 21E1, 21E2) for instance) and a bearing mesh surface (21P) arranged on the frame; and splicing and fixing assemblies (such as (21I1, 21O1, 21I2, 21O2) for instance), arranged on support side frames at two opposite sides of the mesh panel (fig. 3A), and configured to splice and fix the mesh panel to a support side frame (such as (11T, 12T) for example) at one side that is of adjacent mesh racks at two sides (note fig. 1) and that is provided with a sleeve (such as (11F, 12F) or (the connector sleeves as shown along the distal ends of (45) depicted in fig. 1) for instance). Kruse teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed expansion mesh as outlined {mapped} above, including the splicing and fixing assembly at each side comprises: a plurality of n-shaped hanging connectors (fig. 3D) with a hole (shown but not labeled) along one side of the connector (fig. 4A), with the n-shaped hanging connector being fixedly arranged outside the support side frame with an opening facing downwards (fig. 4a); wherein the hole is located in a support plate (VP) at one side of the n-shaped hanging connector and includes an ear groove (viewed as the space to the left of the plate – note fig. 3D) of the n-shaped hanging connector; but Kruse does not show a corresponding number of thread locking members that pass through a support side frame of an adjacent mesh rack to fix the support side frame of the adjacent mesh rack. As to this aspect, Webb is cited as an evidence reference for the known use of threaded locking members (52) used to attach shelves (in this case, an expansion mesh (18)) to support side frames (16). Accordingly, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Kruse so as to incorporate a threaded locking member in order to secure the shelf to an adjacent structure in view of Webb’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing a means by which the hanging connectors are positively secured to the support side frame by virtue of the threaded coupling, as opposed to just being loosely suspended and attached for placement. Furthermore, the plurality of n-shaped hanging connectors and the corresponding number of thread locking members are arranged at intervals along a length direction of the support side frame (note fig. 3A), so that the support side frame at the side is spliced and fixed with the support side frame of the adjacent mesh rack (fig. 1). Regarding Claim 8, as modified, the expansion mesh in combination with a wardrobe frame (note fig. 1), comprising: a first basic mesh rack (right side rack – fig. 1) and a second basic mesh rack (left side rack – fig. 1) both provided with sleeves (viewed as the vertical support mounts along each of the four corners of the racks – fig. 1) at four corners; wherein the expansion mesh is spliced and fixed between the first basic mesh rack and the second basic mesh rack by the splicing and fixing assembly (shown fig. 1); and the sleeves of the first basic mesh rack and the second basic mesh rack are sleeved and fixed at a top and/or a bottom of a support rod (such as 11T, 12T for instance). As to Claim 9, again Kruse teaches of an expansion mesh (fig. 1), comprising: a mesh panel (such as upper / lower (21) for instance), comprising a square frame (note fig. 3A) surrounded by four support side frames (such as (21S1, 21S2, 21E1, 21E2) for instance) and a bearing mesh surface (21P) arranged on the frame; and splicing and fixing assemblies (such as (21I1, 21O1, 21I2, 21O2) for instance), arranged on support side frames at two opposite sides of the mesh panel (fig. 3A), and configured to splice and fix the mesh panel to a support side frame (such as (11T, 12T) for example) at one side that is of adjacent mesh racks at two sides (note fig. 1) and that is provided with a sleeve (such as (11F, 12F) or (the connector sleeves as shown along the distal ends of (45) depicted in fig. 1) for instance). Kruse teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed expansion mesh as outlined {mapped} above, including the splicing and fixing assembly at each side comprising a plurality of hook connectors (fig. 3D) with a hole (shown but not labeled) along one side of the connector (fig. 4A), the hook connector is fixedly arranged on an inner side of the support side frame (fig. 3A), and a hook-shaped head of the hook connector (note the left side structure as shown in fig. 3D) is arranged towards an inner side of the support side frame; but Kruse does not show a corresponding number of thread locking assemblies that pass through a support side frame of an adjacent mesh rack to fix the support side frame of the adjacent mesh rack. As to this aspect, Webb is cited as an evidence reference for the known use of threaded locking assemblies (note the fastening assembly as utilized in Fig. 3C for instance) used to attach shelves (in this case, an expansion mesh (18)) to support side frames (16). Accordingly, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Kruse so as to incorporate a threaded locking assembly in order to secure the shelf to an adjacent structure in view of Webb’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing a means by which the hanging connectors are positively secured to the support side frame by virtue of the threaded coupling, as opposed to just being loosely suspended and attached for placement. As modified, the thread locking assembly passes through the support side frame of the adjacent mesh rack and is in threaded connection with the hook connector. As mapped, the hook-shaped head is not arranged towards an outer side of the support frame (that side is defined as (VP)); however, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary the arrangement of mating components (such as having the (VP) with threaded hole on an inner side and the hook-shaped head on an outer side for instance), with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art and therefore will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) (Prior art disclosed a clock fixed to the stationary steering wheel column of an automobile while the gear for winding the clock moves with the steering wheel; mere reversal of such movement, so the clock moves with wheel, was held to be an obvious expedient.). Additionally, the hook connector comprises: a hook connecting plate (VP) and the hook-shaped head (opposing plate to the left as shown in fig. 3D); the hook connecting plate is attached and fixed on an inner side of the support side frame (it is noted that the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself within a product claim; therefore, the “welded” limitation has not been given patentable weight), and passes through a top of the support side frame and is bent outward to form the hook-shaped head (shown); the thread locking assembly comprises: a large head screw (note (52) of Webb), a washer (50) and a cap (46); and the large head screw passes through the washer, the support side frame of the adjacent mesh rack, the support side frame at the side that is of the mesh panel and that is not provided with the sleeves, and the hook connecting plate in sequence, and is in threaded connection with the cap (note fig. 3C of Webb for instance). Furthermore, the plurality of hook connectors and the corresponding number of thread locking assemblies are arranged at intervals along a length direction of the support side frame (fig. 3A of Kruse), so that the support side frame at the side is spliced and fixed with the support side frame of the adjacent mesh rack (fig. 1).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruse et al., and Webb, and further in view of Welch et al., [US 5,601,038]. Kruse as modified by Webb teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed expansion mesh as outlined above; but Kruse does not show particulars of the support side frame as prescribed by applicant. As to these features, Welch is cited as an evidence reference for the known use of support side frames in the shelving art, where the frames comprise a top rod (30), a bottom rod (33), and a connecting curved rod (32) arranged between the top rod and the bottom rod and in a triangular wavy line shape (fig. 2A); the bearing mesh surface is composed of a plurality of metal wires (24) welded (col. 4) on the support side frame in a criss-cross mode (fig. 2A); and the sleeve (15) is a conical sleeve with an upper aperture smaller than a lower aperture (note fig. 2B). Accordingly, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Kruse so as to either substitute out the original shelf for a shelf like the one used in Welch or to modify the shelf of Kruse so as to incorporate the wiring and sleeve features in view of Welch’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing an alternative shelf structure that would meet or exceed the demands required by an end user (i.e., same sizing and article supporting capabilities), or provide a shelf that includes a varied aesthetic appeal as dependent upon the needs or preferences of the end user (i.e., a user might want a certain look for a shelving rack that blends in with existing structures).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments to the claims and accompanying arguments filed September 14, 2026, have been fully considered but they are only partially persuasive. It is noted that the 102(a)(1) rejection has been obviated and withdrawn due to the newly combined claimed subject matter scope. Applicant argues against the references individually, but one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As to the newly mapped 103 rejections, where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ. 2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ. 2d 1385, 1396 (2007)). Applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results; absent evidence that the modifications necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ. 2d at 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ. 2d at 1396. The position being taken that a prima facie case of obviousness has been established since applicants claimed invention only unites old elements with no change in their respective functions. Common sense directs one to look with care at a patent application that claims as innovation the combination of known devices according to their established functions, as such, the examiner has identified reasons that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements in the same way as the claimed new invention does. Accordingly, since the applicant[s] have submitted no persuasive evidence that the combination of the above elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) because it is no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions resulting in the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement. Consequently, the rejections are deemed adequate to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure – see the attached Form PTO-892 showing an “n” shaped connector used to attach a mesh shelf panel to side support frames.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new mapped grounds 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 JAMES O HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6866. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 am - 4:30 pm.
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, Daniel Troy can be reached at 571-270-3742. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
JOH
September 30, 2026
/James O Hansen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
