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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-4, 6-10 are pending.
Claim 5 is canceled.
Claim 6-7 is currently amended.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “wherein the coiled portion includes a spring wrapped about an exterior of the coiled portion, wherein the spring is adapted to recoil the power cable to a rest position when the compartment is moved to the closed position.” as claimed in claim 3 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hay (US 6976744) in view of Dickey (US 20150108832) Byrne (US 10897149), Byrne (US 10381808 hereinafter “Byrne’808”), and Swanson (US 20170250509); and as evidenced by NPL (Custom designed cables; first footnote for claim 1) and as evidenced by NPL (Amazon Tripp Lite ; Second footnote for claim 1).
Regarding claim 1, Hay discloses, A tool storage unit (Fig. 1) having a wall with an interior surface (interior surface of 14) , comprising: a compartment (20) movable between open and closed positions (Col. 2; line 54-56; Fig. 1, 7).
However, Hay does not disclose, a power strip coupled to and movable with the compartment, wherein the power strip is accessible via the compartment when the compartment is in the opened position; and a power cable extending from the power strip and adapted to couple to a power source.
Dickey is in the field of endeavor and discloses, a power strip (48; Fig. 4) coupled to an interior wall of the compartment (Fig. 7) and accessible via the compartment when the compartment is in the open position; a power cable (Fig. 4) extending from the power strip and adapted to couple to a power source (46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hay to incorporate a power strip coupled to and movable with the compartment, wherein the power strip is accessible via the compartment when the compartment is in the open position; and a power cable extending from the power strip and adapted to couple to a power source as taught by Dickey for the purpose of providing power outlet within moving enclosure (abstract).
While the limitation “wherein the power cable includes a coiled portion” is not disclosed by Hay as modified, Dickey discloses, “the flexible conduit is a flexible cable chain, but it will be understood that other structures may be utilized including spring-loaded cable reels, or other functionally similar structures.” para 83. In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness-type rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art. See MPEP 2144.06(II). Byrne represents evidence that coiled wire is a known equivalence for spring-loaded cable reels (Col. 3; line 57-63). Therefore, because these two retractable were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute spring loaded cable for coiled wire. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. See MPEP 2144.06(II)
With regards to the limitation “coiled portion which is adapted to allow the power cable to elastically uncoil when the compartment is moved to the open position, and automatically recoil the power cable when the compartment is moved to the closed position.” Coiled cables are known to be coil and uncoil in response to force. 1 Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that the coiled portion would uncoil when the drawer is pulled to an open position and coil when the drawer is pushed to a closed position . Additionally, it is noted that, it is well known to have power outlet with coiled cable2.
However, Hay as modified does not disclose, a telescoping support, wherein the telescoping support includes a segmented portion. Dickey discloses, “any structure adapted to provide an extendable and contractable electrical interconnection between the fixed power source and the movable power outlet may be used as long as the flexible electrical interconnector is able to extend/contract and provide an electrical interconnection between the power source and power outlet across the entire travel length of the movable power outlet.”
Byrne’808 discloses, a telescoping support (30) wherein the telescoping support includes a segmented portion utilized for housing coiled cables that extend and contracts.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hay to incorporate a telescoping support, wherein the telescoping support includes a segmented portion as taught by Byrne’808for the purpose of keeping the cable aligned and also to prevent any dangling of the cables while also providing structural support to the drawer.
While Hay as modified does not discloses a support with an end coupled to the interior surface of the wall of the tool storage unit, Swanson discloses an electrical outlet mounted on a drawer (33), a support with an end coupled to the interior surface of the wall (34; fig. 2) of the tool storage unit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hay to have the support be attached with an end coupled to the interior surface of the wall of the unit as taught by Swanson for the purpose of securing the support to unit thus providing proper securement of the support.
The limitation “telescopic support […] adapted to extend and allow the power cable to uncoil when the compartment is moved to the opened position and retract and allow the power cable to recoil when the compartment is moved to the closed position.” is considered to be functional language. The prior art of Hay as modified has all the structures required perform the claimed functional limitation. Hence, the prior art is inherently capable of performing the limitation. It is well settled that it is possible for functional language to define structure, but that where no distinguishing structure has been defined, the claim is not patentable and is fully met by the reference. See MPEP 2173.05(g). See also General Electric v. United States, 198 USPQ 73 which further reinforced the concept that functional language which defines no structure cannot distinguish over the prior art. Herein, the telescopic support of Hay as modified would allow for to perform the limitation as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Hay as modified discloses, the coiled portion includes an elastic material adapted to recoil the power cable to a rest position when the compartment is moved to the closed position (coiled cables are made so that that they stay coiled in resting position and uncoil when pulled; since the cables (instant application and prior art) function the same way it inherently would have elastic material that allows for the change in length).
Regarding claim 4, Hay as modified discloses the coiled portion comprises a wrapping adapted to recoil the power cable to a rest shape when the compartment is moved to the closed position (when the drawer is closed, the coil would recoil to resting shape) .
Regarding claim 7, Hay as modified discloses, wherein the power cable is disposed in an interior of the telescoping support (Byrne’808; fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Hay as modified discloses, the power strip includes at least one power outlet (Dickey ;76).
Regarding claim 9, Hay discloses, the compartment includes a lock adapted to lock the compartment in the closed position (Col. 2; line 64-65).
Regarding claim 10, Hay as modified discloses, the power strip includes a 110-120 V or 220-240 V AC power outlet (Dickey; Para 69).
While Hay as modified does not explicitly disclose, the power strip includes a 12 V power outlet. Dickey discloses the incorporation of 120V/10 A maximum current, or alternatively 220V or 440V. Dickey further discloses, “It will be understood that any voltages and frequencies may be used”. This is considered as a matter of design choice. The type of outlet is determined based on the demand. Incorporating a 12 v outlet instead of 120 V is a matter that falls within the scope of one of ordinary skill in the art and therefore. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ray to incorporate a 12 v outlet for the purpose of allowing the end user to use such outlet for applicable equipment.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hay-Dickey-Byrne-Byrne’808- Swanson as applied to claim 1 in view of Shi (CN 206922196; Provided by applicant).
Regarding claim 6, While Hay as modified does not explicitly disclose, the power cable is disposed around an exterior of the telescoping support
Shi is in the field of endeavor and discloses a wire that is wrapped around a pole.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hay to wrap the coil cable around the pole as taught by Shi for the purpose of allowing for easy visual inspection if the cable gets damaged while preventing any dangling of the cable.
Response to Arguments
Applicants argument with regards to the prior art of Smith is considered but not persuasive as this prior art is no longer utilized in the current office action.
The applicant further argues that the office action fails to show prior art that discloses the limitation of claim 2 discussing the coiled portion including elastic material to which the examiner replies that the prior art of Hay as modified discloses a coiled cable and coiled cables are made to coil and uncoil when pulled. This is a common knowledge and backed by evidence 1 and 2.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 3 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 3 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Comis (US 20170346244) discloses the use of telescopic support to allow for movement of outlet.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANJIDUL ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7670. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 -5:00.
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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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.
/SANJIDUL ISLAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
1 https://www.customdesignedcable.co.uk/news/purpose-coiled-cables/
2 https://www.amazon.com/Tripp-Lite-Medical-Grade-Hospital-Grade-PS-410-HGOEMCC/dp/B0050JSD1Y/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8&th=1 discloses the use of coiled cord for using in drawers.
Prosecution Insights