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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/07/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-5, 10-14, 19, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams et al. (GB2512630A) in view of Yoshino (JPS6192308U), Pires et al. (US2010/0307521), and Lombardi (US5836319A).
Regarding claim 1, Adams discloses a cosmetic product (100, Figures 4-6B) comprising:
a container (110) defining a cavity (hollow interior of 110, as best shown in Figures 5-6B) and including a container coupling member (“The lid 108 and the base 110 portions are rotatably connected to each other by a hinge 112”, refer to Page 5, Fifth Paragraph, wherein the portion of 110 coupled to hinge 112 defines the container coupling member);
a removable (“Here, the godet 16 can be inserted into or removed from the receptacle 104 as indicated by the arrow labeled "C" in Figure 6”, refer to Page 5, Fourth Paragraph) drawer (16) including a drawer cavity (hollow interior of 16) adapted to retain a cosmetic substance (17); and
a frame (104) adapted to be at least partially disposed within the cavity of the container (“As illustrated in Figure 4, when the pocket 104 is in a locked configuration, the mouth 114 of the pocket is covered by the base portion 110 of the housing”, refer to Page 5, Seventh Paragraph), the frame having a first opening (not labeled, refer to cropped and annotated Figure 6B, below), a second opening (not labeled, but referring to Figure 6A, the second opening is the opening through which the removable drawer slidably enters and exits the frame, as evidenced by the double ended arrow shown in Figure 6A), a frame coupling member (Per Page 5, Sixth Paragraph, the frame is rotatably coupled; thus, the portion of the frame that engages hinge 112 defines the frame coupling member) adapted to rotatably couple with the container coupling member (“The pocket is rotatable relative to the lid 108 and base 110 portions so as to move between a locked configuration and a release configuration.”, refer to Page 5, Sixth Paragraph), a floor member (not labeled, refer to cropped and annotated Figure 6B, below) generally extending along a plane opposite the first opening along a plane (not labeled, refer to cropped and annotated Figure 6B, below wherein the floor is disposed at a bottom surface of the frame and the first opening is disposed at a top surface of the frame, thereby providing the floor member being opposite the first opening), the floor member including a cutout (not labeled, refer to cropped and annotated Figure 6B, below) formed thereon;
wherein the first opening is adapted to expose the cosmetic substance (best shown in Figures 5 and 6A, wherein a top surface of the removable drawer comprises the cosmetic material and the top surface of the frame comprises the first opening such that when the removable drawer is disposed within the frame, the first opening exposes the cosmetic substance) such that it may be collected and removed from the drawer cavity and the second opening is adapted to slidably receive the removable drawer (best shown in Figure 6A as evident by the double ended arrow therein),
wherein the frame includes a sidewall (not labeled, refer to annotated Figure 6A, below) including the second opening (refer to annotated Figure 6A, below), and the floor member extends along the plane below the second opening in the periphery of the sidewall (refer to annotated Figure 6A, below).
The claimed phrase “cutout” is being treated as a product by process limitation; that is a cutout, i.e. a negative space bound by a solid body, is formed on the floor of the frame via a method of cutting out a portion of said floor to create said negative space from said solid body. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps (e.g. cutting), only the structure implied by the steps (e.g. a negative space bound by a solid body). Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 USC 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. MPEP 2113.
PNG
media_image1.png
579
928
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
789
1212
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Adams does not disclose the removable drawer further including a gripping member that protrudes a distance below an entirety of the floor member of the frame, or that the cutout forms a shape that corresponds to a shape of the gripping member to align the removable drawer relative to the frame. Rather, no gripping member is provided but instead a lower surface of the removable drawer is exposed by the cutout for a user to grasp and remove the drawer. Adams also does not disclose wherein the second opening extends around half or more of a periphery of the sidewall. Rather, Adams is silent to the particular amount of the sidewall that defines the second opening; however, the second opening is depicted as extending about some portion of the sidewall that is less than half (best shown in Adams Figure 5).
Yoshino discloses a similar cosmetic product (Figures 1-4) comprising a container (1), a frame (2), and a cover (4), where the frame slidingly accepts a removable drawer (3), wherein the drawer comprises a gripping member (14, Yoshino Figure 1) in the shape of a semicircle (refer to Yoshino Figure 1), and the frame comprises a cutout (not labeled, but is the concave cutout shown on a right side of the frame, in Yoshino Figure 1), wherein the cutout forms a shape that corresponds to a shape of the gripping member to align the removable drawer relative to the frame (the limitation “to align” is interpreted as an intended use limitation. When the gripping member is lined up with the cutout, the removable drawer is visually aligned relative to the frame; the cutout has a semicircular shape and the gripping member also has a semicircular shape, thereby providing the cutout to have a shape that corresponds to the shape of the gripping member). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Adams’s cosmetic product such that the lower surface of the removable drawer further includes a gripping member that corresponds in shape to the cutout disposed on the floor member such that the cutout forms a shape that corresponds to a shape of the gripping member to align the removable drawer relative to the frame, as taught by Yoshino, since such a modification would have involved combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of providing a means for grasping a removable drawer from a frame.
The combination of Adams and Yoshino does not disclose that the gripping member protrudes a distance below an entirety of the floor member of the frame or that the second opening extends around half or more of a periphery of the sidewall.
Pires discloses a similar cosmetic container (100, 200; Figures 1-12) comprising an applicator member (103, 203) that is slidably and releasably secured within a frame (101, 202), the frame having a floor member (101c; or bottom wall of 202, as depicted in Figure 12), where the applicator member comprises a gripping member (103a, 203a) with a plurality of protrusions thereon (106, 206). In one configuration, the plurality of protrusions extend a distance below an entirety of the floor member of the frame (refer to annotated Pires Figure 4, below), and in another configuration, the plurality of protrusions are disposed substantially flush with the floor member (refer to Pires Figure 10), where Pires discloses that the plurality of protrusions can be “projections, rings, ridges, ribs, embossments, depressions, grooves, or any other suitable gripping structures” (refer to Paragraph [0055]) and can have “any suitable dimensions, and form any suitable pattern” (refer to Paragraph [0055]), thereby demonstrating that the position, shape, and size of the protrusions can be modified as a matter of design choice to either protrude or not protrude with respect to the floor member in order to provide “better grip and ergonomy in handling” (refer to Paragraph [0055]).
PNG
media_image3.png
633
1016
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cosmetic product of the combination of Adams and Yoshino such that the gripping member protrudes a distance below an entirety of the floor member of the frame, as taught by Pires, since such a modification provides the advantage of providing a better grip and ergonomy in handling.
The combination of Adams, Yoshino, and Pires does not disclose that the second opening extends around half or more of a periphery of the sidewall.
Lombardi discloses a similar cosmetic product (Figures 1-6) comprising a frame (17) having a sidewall (not labeled, refer to cropped and annotated Figure 2, below), and a second opening (18) included in the sidewall, wherein the second opening extends around half (best shown in the left image of Figure 5, wherein phantom lines show the portion of the sidewall that defines the second opening, and is depicted as being half of the periphery/circumference of the sidewall) of a periphery of the sidewall. Although the drawings may not be to scale, they can still be relied upon for teaching the general conditions of the claim because the overall relationship is depicted. 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 cosmetic product of the combination of Adams, Yoshino, and Pires such that the second opening extends around half or more of a periphery of the sidewall, as taught by Lombardi, since such a modification would have involved a change in size of a component of an invention and it has been held that a change in size is within the level of ordinary skill; additionally, such a modification provides the advantage of reducing the amount of material required to manufacture the device, thereby reducing the weight and material cost of the device.
PNG
media_image4.png
829
914
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Adams, Yoshino, Pires, and Lombardi discloses the cosmetic product of claim 1, as applied above. Adams further discloses wherein the removable drawer is slidably inserted into the second opening of the frame in a direction generally parallel to a floor member of the frame (best shown in Adams Figures 6A-6B).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Adams, Yoshino, Pires, and Lombardi discloses the cosmetic product of claim 1, as applied above. Adams further discloses wherein the removable drawer is prevented from being removed from or inserted into the second opening of the frame until the frame is rotatably moved to a raised position relative to the container (“As illustrated in Figure 4, when the pocket 104 is in a locked configuration, the mouth 114 of the pocket is covered by the base portion 110 of the housing 112. As illustrated in Figure 5, when the pocket 104 is in a release configuration, the mouth 114 of the pocket 104 is uncovered so as to permit insertion/removal of a godet 16 to/from the pocket (via the mouth 114 of the pocket 104)”, refer to Page 5, last two paragraphs).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Adams, Yoshino, Pires, and Lombardi discloses the cosmetic product of claim 1, as applied above. Adams further discloses the cosmetic product comprising a cover (108) including a cover coupling member (“The lid 108 and base 110 portions are rotatably connected to each other by a hinge 112.”, refer to Adams Page 5, Fifth Paragraph; the portion of cover 108 that couples to the hinge defines the cover coupling member) adapted to rotatably couple with the container coupling member (refer to Adams Page 5, Fifth Paragraph; i.e. the cover and the container are coupled together via the hinge and thus the respective coupling members are adapted to rotatably couple with one another).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Adams, Yoshino, Pires, and Lombardi discloses the cosmetic product of claim 4, as applied above. Adams further discloses wherein the cover coupling member, the frame coupling member, and the container coupling member are rotatably coupled with each other via a common hinge (refer to Adams Figure 6B; “The lid 108 and base 110 portions are rotatably connected to each other by a hinge 112”, refer to Adams Page 5, Fifth Paragraph; and “The pocket is rotatable relative to the lid 108 and base 110 portions”, refer to Adams Page 5, Sixth Paragraph).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Adams, Yoshino, Pires, and Lombardi discloses the cosmetic product of claim 1, as applied above. The combination does not disclose the cosmetic product further comprising an applicator adapted to be disposed within the cavity of the container.
Yoshino discloses providing a space in the container that stores an applicator (15) underneath the frame (2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the cosmetic product of the combination of Adams, Yoshino, Pires, and Lombardi to provide a space beneath the frame that further comprises an applicator adapted to be disposed within the cavity of the container, as taught by Yoshino, since such a modification provides the advantage of increasing the convenience of the device by coupling the applicator that is to be used with the cosmetic stored within the container.
Regarding claim 11, Adams discloses a cosmetic product (100, Figures 4-6B) comprising:
a container (110) defining a cavity (hollow interior of 110, as best shown in Figures 5-6B) and including a container coupling member (“The lid 108 and the base 110 portions are rotatably connected to each other by a hinge 112”, refer to Page 5, Fifth Paragraph, wherein the portion of 110 coupled to hinge 112 defines the container coupling member);
a removable (“Here, the godet 16 can be inserted into or removed from the receptacle 104 as indicated by the arrow labeled "C" in Figure 6”, refer to Page 5, Fourth Paragraph) drawer (16) including a drawer cavity (hollow interior of 16) adapted to retain a cosmetic substance (17); and
a frame (104) adapted to be at least partially disposed within the cavity of the container (“As illustrated in Figure 4, when the pocket 104 is in a locked configuration, the mouth 114 of the pocket is covered by the base portion 110 of the housing”, refer to Page 5, Seventh Paragraph), the frame including a sidewall (not labeled, refer to annotated Figure 6A, below) defining a frame cavity (not labeled, refer to annotated Figure 6A, below), a floor member (not labeled, refer to cropped and annotated Figure 6B, below) generally extending across the sidewall (the floor joins the sidewall as best shown in Figure 4A) and along a plane (referring to Figure 6B, the floor member is flat, thereby extending along a plane), a slot (114, best shown in Figure 6A) formed on the sidewall, and a frame coupling member (Per Page 5, Sixth Paragraph, the frame is rotatably coupled; thus, the portion of the frame that engages hinge 112 defines the frame coupling member) adapted to rotatably couple with the container coupling member (“The pocket is rotatable relative to the lid 108 and base 110 portions so as to move between a locked configuration and a release configuration”, refer to Page 5, Sixth Paragraph), the floor member including a cutout formed thereon (not labeled, refer to cropped and annotated Figure 6B, below);
wherein the slot is adapted to slidably receive the removable drawer in a direction parallel to the floor member (best shown in Figure 6A as evident by the double ended arrow therein) such that the removable drawer is positionable within the frame cavity (refer to Figure 5, wherein the removable drawer is shown to be disposed within the frame cavity), and
the floor member extends along a plane (best shown in Figure 6B, wherein the floor member is depicted as being flat, thereby extending along a plane) below the slot in a periphery of the sidewall (refer to annotated Figure 6A, below, wherein the floor member is disposed below the sidewall).
PNG
media_image5.png
572
804
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
579
928
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The claimed phrase “cutout” is being treated as a product by process limitation; that is a cutout, i.e. a negative space bounded by a solid body is formed on the floor of the frame via a method of cutting out a portion of said floor to create said negative space from said solid body. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps (e.g. cutting), only the structure implied by the steps (e.g. a negative space bound by a solid body). Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 USC 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. MPEP 2113.
Adams does not disclose the removable drawer further including a gripping member that protrudes a distance below an entirety of the floor member of the frame and wherein the cutout forms a shape that corresponds to a shape of the gripping member to align the removable drawer relative to the frame. Adams additionally does not disclose wherein the slot extends around half or more of a periphery of the sidewall. Rather, Adams is silent to the amount of the sidewall occupied by the slot; however, the figures depict the slot as occupying less than half of the periphery of the sidewall.
Yoshino discloses a similar cosmetic product (Figures 1-4) comprising a container (1), a frame (2), and a cover (4), the frame slidingly accepts a removable drawer (3), wherein the drawer comprises a gripping member (14, Figure 1) and the frame comprises a cutout (not labeled, but is the concave cutout shown on a right side of the frame, in Yoshino Figure 1), wherein the cutout forms a shape that corresponds to a shape of the gripping member to align the removable drawer relative to the frame (the limitation “to align” is interpreted as an intended use limitation. When the gripping member is lined up with the cutout, the removable drawer is visually aligned relative to the frame). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Adams’s cosmetic product such that the lower surface of the removable drawer further includes a gripping member that corresponds in shape to the cutout disposed on the floor member such that the cutout forms a shape that corresponds to a shape of the gripping member to align the removable drawer relative to the frame, as taught by Yoshino, since such a modification would have involved combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of providing a means for grasping a removable drawer from a frame.
The combination of Adams and Yoshino does not disclose that the gripping member protrudes a distance below an entirety of the floor member of the frame or wherein the slot extends around half or more of a periphery of the sidewall.
Pires discloses a similar cosmetic container (100, 200; Figures 1-12) comprising an applicator member (103, 203) that is slidably and releasably secured within a frame (101, 202), the frame having a floor member (101c; or bottom wall of 202, as depicted in Figure 12), where the applicator member comprises a gripping member (103a, 203a) with a plurality of protrusions thereon (106, 206). In one configuration, the plurality of protrusions extend a distance below an entirety of the floor member of the frame (refer to annotated Pires Figure 4, below), and in another configuration, the plurality of protrusions are disposed substantially flush with the floor member (refer to Pires Figure 10), where Pires discloses that the plurality of protrusions can be “projections, rings, ridges, ribs, embossments, depressions, grooves, or any other suitable gripping structures” (refer to Paragraph [0055]) and can have “any suitable dimensions, and form any suitable pattern” (refer to Paragraph [0055]), thereby demonstrating that the position, shape, and size of the protrusions can be modified as a matter of design choice to either protrude or not protrude with respect to the floor member in order to provide “better grip and ergonomy in handling” (refer to Paragraph [0055]).
PNG
media_image3.png
633
1016
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cosmetic product of the combination of Adams and Yoshino such that the gripping member protrudes a distance below an entirety of the floor member of the frame, as taught by Pires, since such a modification provides the advantage of providing a better grip and ergonomy in handling.
The combination of Adams, Yoshino, and Pires does not disclose wherein the slot extends around half or more of a periphery of the sidewall.
Lombardi discloses a similar cosmetic product (Figures 1-6) comprising a frame (17) having a sidewall (not labeled, refer to cropped and annotated Figure 2, below), and a second opening (18) included in the sidewall, wherein the second opening extends around half (best shown in the left image of Figure 5, wherein phantom lines show the portion of the sidewall that defines the second opening, and is depicted as being half of the periphery/circumference of the sidewall) of a periphery of the sidewall. Although the drawings may not be to scale, they can still be relied upon for teaching the general conditions of the claim because the overall relationship is depicted. 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 cosmetic product of the combination of Adams, Yoshino, and Pires such that the second opening extends around half or more of a periphery of the sidewall, as taught by Lombardi, since such a modification would have involved a change in size of a component of an invention and it has been held that a change in size is within the level of ordinary skill; additionally, such a modification provides the advantage of reducing the amount of material required to manufacture the device, thereby reducing the weight and material cost of the device.
PNG
media_image4.png
829
914
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Adams, Yoshino, Pires, and Lombardi discloses the cosmetic product of claim 11, as applied above. Adams further discloses wherein the removable drawer is prevented from being removed from or inserted into the slot until the frame is rotatably moved to a raised position relative to the container (“As illustrated in Figure 4, when the pocket 104 is in a locked configuration, the mouth 114 of the pocket is covered by the base portion 110 of the housing 112. As illustrated in Figure 5, when the pocket 104 is in a release configuration, the mouth 114 of the pocket 104 is uncovered so as to permit insertion/removal of a godet 16 to/from the pocket (via the mouth 114 of the pocket 104)”, refer to Page 5, last two paragraphs).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Adams, Yoshino, Pires, and Lombardi discloses the cosmetic product of claim 11, as applied above. Adams further discloses the cosmetic product comprising a cover (108) including a cover coupling member (“The lid 108 and base 110 portions are rotatably connected to each other by a hinge 112.”, refer to Adams Page 5, Fifth Paragraph; the portion of cover 108 that couples to the hinge defines the cover coupling member) adapted to rotatably couple with the container coupling member (refer to Adams Page 5, Fifth Paragraph; i.e. the cover and the container are coupled together via the hinge and thus the respective coupling members are adapted to rotatably couple with one another).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Adams, Yoshino, Pires, and Lombardi discloses the cosmetic product of claim 13, as applied above. Adams further discloses wherein the cover coupling member, the frame coupling member, and the container coupling member are rotatably coupled with each other via a common hinge (refer to Adams Figure 6B; “The lid 108 and base 110 portions are rotatably connected to each other by a hinge 112”, refer to Adams Page 5, Fifth Paragraph; and “The pocket is rotatable relative to the lid 108 and base 110 portions”, refer to Adams Page 5, Sixth Paragraph).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Adams, Yoshino, Pires, and Lombardi discloses the cosmetic product of claim 11, as applied above. The combination does not thus far disclose the cosmetic product further comprising an applicator adapted to be disposed within the cavity of the container.
Yoshino discloses providing a space in the container that stores an applicator (15) underneath the tray (2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the cosmetic product of the combination of Adams, Yoshino, Pires, and Lombardi to provide a space beneath the tray further comprising an applicator adapted to be disposed within the cavity of the container, as taught by Yoshino, since such a modification provides the advantage of increasing the convenience of the device by coupling the applicator that is to be used with the cosmetic stored within the container.
Regarding claims 20-21, the combination of Adams, Yoshino, Pires, and Lombardi discloses the cosmetic product of claims 1 and 11, as applied above, having a plurality of ridges (per the modification addressed in claims 1 and 11, the protrusions, 1069, 206, in the form of ridges, as taught by Pires, were incorporated into the cosmetic product of the combination of Adams and Yoshino). The combination does not thus far disclose wherein the gripping member comprises an ovoid shape or that the plurality of ridges are separated by a generally depressed region.
Pires discloses the gripping member having an ovoid shape (ovoid is defined by Cambridge Dictionary as “having the same shape as an egg, or of a similar shape”, wherein the shape of Pires’ gripping member is a similar shape to that of an egg since it is elongated and rounded at both ends) with the plurality of ridges being separated by a generally depressed region (referring to Figures 4 and 10, the two ridges are shown to be separated by an area at a lower elevation comparatively, thereby defining a generally depressed region). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the cosmetic product of the combination of Adams, Yoshino, Pires, and Lombardi such that the gripping member comprises an ovoid shape having a plurality of ridges separated by a generally depressed region, as taught by Pires, since such a modification would have involved combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of providing a gripping member on a cosmetic device that permits removal of said cosmetic device from a cosmetic assembly.
Regarding claims 22-23, the combination of Adams, Yoshino, Pires, and Lombardi discloses the product of claims 10 and 19, as applied above. The combination does not thus far disclose wherein the cavity of the container extends below the floor member of the frame when the frame is in the lowered position, and the applicator is disposed in a region of the cavity below the floor member.
Yoshino discloses providing a space in the container that stores an applicator (15) underneath the tray (2) by providing the cavity of the container to extend below the floor member of the frame (refer to Yoshino Figure 2, wherein puff, 15 is shown to be disposed in a cavity below the tray) when the frame is in the lowered position (Yoshino Figure 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the cosmetic product of the combination of Adams, Yoshino, Pires, and Lombardi such that the cavity of the container extends below the floor member of the frame when the frame is in the lowered position, and the applicator is disposed in a region of the cavity below the floor member, as taught by Yoshino, since such a modification provides the advantage of increasing the convenience of the device by coupling the applicator that is to be used with the cosmetic stored within the container.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 103
Applicant's arguments filed 10/02/2025 have been fully considered.
Argument #1:
In Adams, if the floor member of the pocket 104 were modified to extend below the identified second opening/slot as now claimed, the identified cutout (which receives the gripping member) would potentially be located above the protrusions identified in the office action at the front side of the base portion 110. This means that a gripping member extending through the cutout and protruding below the entirety of the floor member could interfere with closing the device by hitting the protrusions that the Office Action identified as necessary to “engage/support a rim of the frame at front portion thereof”. Accordingly, the proposed combination could render Adams inoperable for its intended purpose, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to make such a modification, particularly in the absence of any suggestion or teaching to do so.
Response #1:
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the floor member extends below the slot) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims, as amended, require that the floor member extends along a plane and the plane is disposed opposite the first opening. The claims do not require that the floor member is disposed below the second opening. Further, the opening/slot is defined as the entire void, i.e. the opening/slot is defined by the void in the sidewall and also, the void within the interior of the frame. By this definition, the floor member still extends below the opening/slot since the opening/slot extends through an entirety of the frame in order to receive the removable drawer, as required by the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH WOODHOUSE whose telephone number is (571)272-5635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9am - 5pm.
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, EDELMIRA BOSQUES can be reached at 571-270-5614. 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.
/SARAH WOODHOUSE/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights