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 .
Amendment filed 11/12/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 5, 7-8 and 10 remain pending in the present application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-8 and 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Re. Cl. 1, the limitation “two or more fastening wheels comprising…a hollow ring parallel to a fastening slide” in Line 5-6 renders the claim indefinite in the Examiner’s position. It is unclear what the Applicant is intending to claim in this instance since it appears as if the Applicant is claiming that the fastening slide is parallel to itself. Is the Applicant intending to claim that one of the fastening slides are parallel to another of the fastening wheels? Is the Applicant intending to claim that the hollow ring is parallel to another part of the fastening slide? Appropriate clarification is requested.
Re. Cl. 1, the limitation “two or more fastening wheels comprising…a hollow ring parallel to a fastening wheel” in Line 9-10 renders the claim indefinite in the Examiner’s position. It is unclear what the Applicant is intending to claim in this instance since it appears as if the Applicant is claiming that the fastening wheel is parallel to itself. Is the Applicant intending to claim that one of the fastening wheels are parallel to another of the fastening wheels? Is the Applicant intending to claim that the hollow ring is parallel to another part of the fastening wheel? Appropriate clarification is requested.
Re. Cl. 1, the limitation “hollow ring…which are configured to be inserted and fixed into the distal ends of the cylindrical driving beams” renders the claim indefinite since it appears to contradict what is shown in Applicant’s figures. As can be seen in Fig. 1 and 4a-b, the hollow ring of fastening wheel (1) appears to surround or be attached on an exterior of the cylindrical beam (3). In other words, it appears as if the wheels are inserted onto the cylindrical beam rather than into the distal ends as claimed. Therefore, it is unclear which configuration is intended to be claimed. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claims to refer to the hollow ring being fixed onto the distal ends. Appropriate clarification is requested.
Re. Cl. 8, the limitation “positioned on the front wall of the box or container” in Line 4 renders the claim indefinite in the Examiner’s position. Initially, the limitation “the front wall” should read “a front wall” since the front wall has not been previously established. Further, claim 8 appears to refer to the container differently than how it was referred to in claim 1. Claim 1 only refers to the container in a functional or intended use manner whereas claim 8 appear to positively recite the container. Therefore it is unclear if the Applicant intends to functional claim the container or require it as part of the claims. It is suggested that the Applicant amend claim 8 to state something to the effect of “a drawer puller positionable on a front wall of the box or container” to overcome these issues and have claim 8 better agree with what was already claimed in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang US 2020/0196754 (hereinafter Wang) in view of de la Fuente US 2021/0393030 (hereinafter de la Fuente).
Re. Cl. 1, Wang discloses: A system of fastening and sliding means (see Fig. 2) for adapting boxes or containers as sliding and attachable drawers (see Fig. 2, the device is capable of being used in the claimed intended use, by having a container between the 2’s for instance), comprising: two or more cylindrical driving beams (3, Fig. 2); two or more fastening slides (4, Fig. 2, 9) configured to slide on the two or more cylindrical inserted into the driving beams (see Fig. 2), comprising at their upper end, a hollow ring (see 41, Fig. 9) parallel to a fastening slide and at their lower end a sawed clamp (43, Fig. 8) that is pressure-joined to the side walls of the boxes (see Fig. 8, the clamp 43 is capable of being used in the claimed intended use in the same manner as it pressure clamps 252), wherein said hollow rings are configured to receive the two or more cylindrical driving beams and slide thereon (see Fig. 2); and two or more fastening wheels (30s located on the opposing ends of 3s, Fig. 2) comprising, at their lower end, a hollow ring (see Fig. 1-2, where 30 receives 3) parallel to a fastening wheel (see Fig. 2), which are configured to be inserted and fixed into the distal ends of the cylindrical driving beams (see Fig. 2), and at their upper end, a flat plate (see Fig. 1-2, where 30s secure to 11, 12) configured to be secured to a surface where a drawer will be inserted (see Fig. 1, in the same manner as attaching to 11, 12).
Re. Cl. 2, Wang discloses: the cylindrical driving beams are cylindrical shafts (see Fig. 1-2).
Re. Cl. 3, Wang discloses: the number of fastening slides is four (see Fig. 2).
Re. Cl. 5, Wang discloses: the number of characterized in that it comprises four fastening wheels is four (see Fig. 1-2).
Re. Cls. 1 and 7, Wang discloses that the bars (3) are fixed to sidewalls (11, 12) but does not specifically say how they are fixed thereon and therefore does not disclose the flat plate with an adhesive element which configures the fastening wheel to be adhered to a surface where a drawer will be inserted (Cl. 1) or the adhesive element of the upper plate of the fastening wheels is selected from double-sided adhesive tape, hook-and-loop fastener, or glue (Cl. 7). De la Fuente discloses a drawer system (Fig. 1) wherein it is known to use an adhesive element (42, Fig. 4) on a flat plate to adhere to a surface where a drawer will be installed (see Fig. 4) wherein the adhesive element is double-sided tape (Paragraph 0005, Lines 1-5).
Therefore, 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 flat plate of Wang to employ an adhesive (i.e. double sided tape) as disclosed by de la Fuente with reasonable expectation of success since de la Fuente state that such a modification enables for easy installation (Paragraph 0005, Lines 1-5).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of de la Fuente as applied to claims 1-3, 5 and 7 above, and further in view of Welch US 6659576 (hereinafter Welch).
Re. Cl. 10, Wang discloses that the fastening slides include one or more of a plurality of fasteners/screws (see 27s, Fig. 4) configured to fix the fastening slides to the box or container and increase the load capacity thereof (see Fig. 4, the screws would add load capacity to the system and enable for fixing a container between 2s for example). Wang does not disclose that the fasteners are bolts. Welch discloses a modular drawer mounting system (Fig. 1) which uses fasteners (26) in the form of screws, nails, bolts, or the like (Col. 3, Lines 24-27) or in other words discloses that screws and bolts are alternatives to one another.
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 Wang device to use bolts instead of screws as disclosed by Welch with reasonable expectation of success since it has been held obvious to replace one known means with another to achieve a predictable result.
KSR Int’l Co. V. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S. ___, 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7 and 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Einhorn US 3011648, Whittier US 2567630, and Baldwin US 8906167 disclose other known sliding trays which are presented to the Applicant for their consideration.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 CHRISTOPHER E GARFT whose telephone number is (571)270-1171. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m..
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at (571)272-4797. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER GARFT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632