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 § 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(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buckley et al. (US 2017/0280875).
Regarding claim 1, Buckley et al. (hereafter “D1”) discloses a method of manufacturing a shelf support beam for use in a shelving unit (shelving system 34) to support a shelf, comprising: cutting a blank from a sheet of material ([0030] - discloses cut of sheet material, bending, folding, stamping processes), the blank comprising a body (at a shelving support member 10 – figure 1) that extends between a first end and an opposite second end and including a tab (retention portion 20) located at each of the first and second ends; punch-forming at least one securing finger (tab 78) in each tab (punched area 28); and roll-forming (folding, bending disclosed in [0030]) the body of the blank into a structural member of the shelf support beam with a roll-forming machine, the structural member comprising a C-shaped cross-section (figure 1) and including a web (at vertical portion 48) separating a top flange (50) that is configured to support the shelf from a bottom flange (52). D1 teaches wherein the at least one securing finger (78) is punch-formed after the body of the blank is roll-formed ([0030 -0031]). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to perform the roll-forming process before the punching of the tab portion as it would result in the same product structure performing in the same manner using already disclosed process just in a varied order.
Regarding claim 2, D1 discloses further comprising punch-forming the at least one
securing finger including a stiffening rib (first portion 82 can be considered the finger and second portion 84 a stiffening rib – [0025]) in each tab.
Regarding claim 3, D1 discloses wherein the at least one securing finger comprises a pair of securing fingers (first portion 82 and second portion 84 can each be considered a finger).
Regarding claim 4, D1 discloses further comprising punch-forming an enforcement tab (first portion 82 can be the finger and second portion 84 can be considered an enforcement tab) in the body of the blank at each of the first and second ends before the body of the blank is roll-formed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art of D1 does not teach at least the claimed roll-forming machine including one or more grooved rolls and the prior art documents of record do not suggest a modification to meet these limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See notice of references cited form PTO-892. References not applied but cited are relevant as disclosing or suggesting at least one feature in the claims or disclosure of the present application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK D HAWN whose telephone number is (571)270-5320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6.
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 5712728227. 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.
/PATRICK D HAWN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights