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 2, 4, 6-7, 21-24 & 26-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sokol [US 4,262,605] in view of Greenberg [US 2009/0021128]. Sokol teaches of a modular workbench system (fig. 2) comprising a set of cabinets comprising at least three cabinets (shown in figs. 1-3 for instance), the three cabinets including at least one of a large cabinet (A1), at least one of a medium cabinet (B1 or B2), and at least one of a small cabinet (C1 or C2); wherein the at least one medium cabinet is larger than the at least one small cabinet (note fig. 3 when comparing the bigger cabinets vs smaller cabinets) and the at least one large cabinet is larger than the at least one medium cabinet (note fig. 3); and wherein the set of cabinets are modular and capable of multiple different arrangements (note figs. 4-13 for instance) and the at least one the medium cabinet and the at least one small cabinet are nestable in the at least one large cabinet (such as shown in fig. 1 or as can be achieved if just B2 & C2 are inserted within A1 directly). Sokol teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed system as outlined {mapped} above; but does not show the medium cabinet as including a pull-out drawer. As to the incorporation of a drawer within one of the cabinets, Greenberg is cited as an evidence reference for the known use of a cabinet ((12) can be viewed as a medium cabinet since it is smaller than cabinet (11)) being nestable within a larger cabinet ((11) which can be viewed as a large cabinet), where the medium cabinet includes a pull-out drawer (described as “drawers” in [0039] and shown in figs. 1 & 4-5). As such, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Sokol so as to incorporate a pull-out drawer within one of the cabinets (medium cabinet) in view of Greenberg’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by expanding the storage capabilities of the modular system since a pull-out drawer added to one of the smaller cabinets would enable an end user to conveniently and securely house and recover loose items upon demand by sliding the drawer in and out of the cabinet for easy storage and retrieval. Regarding Claim 4, as modified, the medium cabinet includes a worktop (such as one of the insertable planar components as shown in fig. 2 - Sokol). Regarding Claim 6, as modified, the system further comprising at least one shelf ((1520) – Sokol). Regarding Claim 7, as modified, the shelf is reconfigurable within the set of cabinets (i.e., the shelf can be reconfigured such as being moved height-wise within A1 {fig. 15} for instance, or the smallest shelf {shown in fig. 2} can be placed and stored within B2 for instance - Sokol). Regarding Claim 21, as modified, the at least one small cabinet and the at least one medium cabinet stand upright within the at least one large cabinet (clearly capable of when viewing fig. 3 for instance and utilizing B2 & C2 within A1 - Sokol). Regarding Claim 22, as modified, the at least one small cabinet and the at least one medium cabinet lay horizontally within the at least one large cabinet (clearly capable of when viewing fig. 4 for instance and utilizing B2 & C2 within A1 - Sokol). Regarding Claim 23, as modified, the at least one medium cabinet and the at least one small cabinet fit entirely within an interior space of the at least one large cabinet (clearly capable of when viewing the figures and description - Sokol). Regarding Claim 24, as modified, the at least one large cabinet can comprise outer doors (note (26, 28) of Greenberg for instance) that close when the at least one medium cabinet and the at least one small cabinet are nested inside; as modified, the interior of the large cabinet can be obscured when the doors are in a closed position upon the cabinet, thereby providing concealment of items located within the cabinet as dictated upon the needs and/or preferences of an end user. Regarding Claim 26, as modified, the at least one medium cabinet comprises one medium cabinet (B1 or B2) and the at least one small cabinet comprises two small cabinets (C2’s). Regarding Claim 27, as modified, the one medium cabinet and the two small cabinets are nestable in the at least one larger cabinet (clearly capable of due to size differences – note fig. 1 - Sokol). Regarding Claim 28, the one medium cabinet and one of the two small cabinets are nestable in the at least one larger cabinet and the other of the two small cabinets is nestable in the medium cabinet (clearly capable of due to sizing and the fact that the small cabinets are nestable within the medium cabinets – Sokol). Regarding Claim 29, as modified, the at least one medium cabinet comprises two medium cabinets (B2’s) and the at least one small cabinet comprises two small cabinets (C2’s). Regarding Claim 30, as modified, each of the two small cabinets are nested in each of the medium cabinets (such as shown in fig. 1 - Sokol). Regarding Claim 31, as modified, the system further comprising at least one worktop (1520) nestable in the at least one large cabinet (fig. 15 - Sokol). Regarding Claim 32, as modified, the at least one worktop comprises two worktops (fig. 2 shows multiple worktops, and these worktops can be placed one atop each other for storage purposes - Sokol). Regarding Claim 33, as modified, each worktop is positioned vertically above each of the two medium cabinets (such as when two medium cabinets (B2’s) are nested within the large cabinet (A1) and the worktops are placed atop the medium cabinets for storage purposes - Sokol).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sokol and Greenberg and further in view of Anderson [US 4,172,623]. The combined prior art teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed modular system as outlined above; but does not show each cabinet as including recessed handles. As to the cabinets including recessed handles, Anderson is cited as an evidence reference for the known use of employing recessed handles (15) along an exterior of a cabinet (10) for gripping purposes. As such, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cabinets of Sokol so as to employ recessed handles along the exterior of the cabinets in view of Anderson’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing a convenient grasping or gripping location along the cabinets in order to assist an end user for manipulating or moving purposes.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sokol and Greenberg and further in view of Manchester [US 4,329,003]. The combined prior art teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed modular system as outlined {mapped} above; but does not show a set of rails permitting suspending one of the cabinets from a wall. As to the incorporation of a set of rails for mounting purposes, Manchester is cited as an evidence reference for the known use of employing a set of rails (20, 21) along back walls of cabinets (10-18) thereby permitting suspension of the cabinets from a wall in an analogous art. As such, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cabinets of Sokol so as to incorporate rails along the back of at least one cabinet (A1) for instance, in view of Manchester’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by allowing the cabinet to be hung upon a wall as dependent upon the needs and/or preferences of an end user, such as in practical applications where space below a cabinet can be used for additional storage or counter space (col. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 08, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant remarks that Sokol requires the small cabinet to nest within the medium cabinet, which then would rest within the large cabinet and thereby preventing the aspect of a drawer within the medium cabinet. While such an embodiment is shown within Sokol (see fig. 1), this arrangement is not the only arrangement to which the nestable system can be utilized (for example two small cabinets (C2) can be stacked and nested within a medium cabinet (B1), which is then nested within a large cabinet (A1) as just one possibility of the system’s versatility. As such, a prior art structure is entitled to all its potential uses / applications. Additionally, applicant argues that the cabinet (11) of Greenberg cannot be provided “within another larger structure, and therefore, the cabinet (11) cannot be said to be medium”; while also arguing that the cabinets of Greenberg are not disclosed as nesting thereof. In reply, the examiner notes that Greenberg is solely relied upon for the known teaching of a smaller cabinet having drawers being nested within a larger cabinet of an assembly. The examiner identified cabinet (11) as the large cabinet, while cabinet (12) was identified as the medium cabinet which is nestable within the large cabinet (fig. 1). As such, the position is 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. Consequently, the rejections are deemed adequate to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. Furthermore, 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. 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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
November 5, 2025
/James O Hansen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637