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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the reply filed on 8/5/2026, wherein claims 1, 3, 9-10, 23, 27-32, 34 were amended, claims 5-8, 11, 13-22, 24-26 are cancelled. Claims 1-4, 9-10, 12, 23, 27-35 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Amended claims 9-10, and 29-30 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the original species features.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 9-10, 12, and 29-30 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Item 31 (left side vs right side) appears different in figure 7. , however, claim 1 positively states item 31 as slidable relative to the rest of the container. 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 § 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 3 and 34 are 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.
Claims 3 and 34 recites the limitation "the second container" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 23, 27-28, 31-33, and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai (US 11155382 B1) in view of Brunner 1 (US 20180290288 A1) and Brunner 2 (US 20220177191 A1) .
With respect to claim 1, Cai discloses a drawer storage module comprising: a storage housing having a first side (1), a second side (side opposite 1) and a top surface (figure 1) extending between said first and second sides; first latching mechanisms (2) provided on the first side adjacent the top surface. wherein the first mechanisms are spring loaded (43 of 2); a first tab (22 on 73 of second side) provided on the second side adjacent to and projecting upward from the top surface, opposite the first latching mechanism; wherein, the storage module is capable of selectively receiving and securing a first container on the top surface thereof at least the first latching mechanism (2) and the first tab (2), and is capable of selectively receiving and securing a second container on the top surface thereof by at least the first latching mechanism and the second tab (figure 1) or by the first tab and the second tab.
Cai failed to disclose of a second latching mechanism, however, this feature is considered a duplication of the first latching mechanism and not novel under the guidelines established In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) in which “the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.” (More latching mechanisms would be required of a larger container).
Cai failed to disclose of a second tab projecting upwardly from the top surface, between the first latching mechanism and the first tab and wherein the second tab is translatable along the top surface relative to the first and second sides based on a size of the container. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely stackable containers, Brunner 1 taught of a container with a guide rail (rail 110) in which the second tab (support flaps, clamps, tools and the like) are inserted and translatable allowing which is useful for supporting workpieces (page 2 [0035]). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the top surface of Cai to include a second tab (support tools on guide rails) as taught by Brunner 1 in order to allow for more form fitting reception of different sized containers.
Cai failed to disclose of at least one storage drawer slidable into and out of said drawer storage housing. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely stackable containers, Brunner 2 in figure 5A depicts a storage drawer slidable into and out of said drawer storage housing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of tool storage before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the sliding drawers as taught by Brunner 2 (figure 5A) for the raising door as disclosed by Cai since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, with the difference being the substitution of the elements. In the present case, a sliding drawer would allow access to the storage chamber while items are stacked on top. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the one known element for the other to produce a predictable result (MPEP 2143).
PNG
media_image1.png
284
340
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
378
322
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
378
414
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the second tab includes a first projecting upward from the top surface and toward the first side and extending substantially parallel to the first latching mechanism and a second ledge projecting upward from the top surface toward the second side and extending substantially parallel to the first tab. Although not directly taught. Brunner 1 does teach of the second tab being a tool (as the guide rail allows tool storage). There are a variety of tools that meet this limitation, including a T-wrench or T-ratchet. Official Notice is taken that a T-wrench was notoriously well-known in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine tool storage to include a T-wrench with this well-known technique in order to utilize said tool. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a T-wrench or T-ratchet in the guide rail to have quick accessibility to said tool.
With respect to claim 4, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further teach wherein the drawer is slidable along a direction which is perpendicular to at least one of the first side and the second side. (This can be taught by the Brunner Reference. There are only a finite number of placements for the storage drawer. To meet this claim, two placements could be taught out of the four finite placements. It would have been obvious to try to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the drawer slidable along a direction perpendicular to either the first side or second side since there are only a finite number of predictable solutions. Either the drawer is slidable perpendicular or parallel relative the first or second side. Thus, making a drawer slidable in a direction perpendicular to the first or second side would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product was not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. See MPEP 2143.)
With respect to claim 23, Cai discloses a drawer storage module comprising: a drawer storage housing having first and second sides and further including a top surface (top surface figure 1) extending between said first (1) and second sides (opposite 1), said storage module housing including first latching mechanisms (2) provided on the first side adjacent the top surface, wherein the first and second latching mechanisms are spring loaded, a first tab (22 on opposite 2) provided on the second side adjacent to and projecting upward from the top surface, opposite the first latching mechanism, wherein the storage housing is capable (the device is capable of receiving a container as such) of selectively receiving and securing a first container on the top surface thereof by at least the first latching mechanism and the first tab, and is capable of selectively receiving and securing a second container on the top surface thereof by at least the first latching mechanism and the second tab or, the first tab and the second tab.
Cai failed to disclose of a second latching mechanism, however, this feature is considered a duplication of the first latching mechanism and not novel under the guidelines established In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) in which “the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.”
Cai failed to disclose of a second tab projecting upward from the top surface between the first spring loaded latching mechanism and the first tab, wherein the second tab is translatable along the top surface relative to the first and second sides based on a size of the second container. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely stackable containers, Brunner 1 taught of a container with a guide rail (rail 110) in which the second tab (support flaps, clamps, tools and the like) are inserted and translatable allowing which is useful for supporting workpieces (page 2 [0035]). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the top surface of Cai to include a second tab (support tools on guide rails) as taught by Brunner 1 in order to allow for more form fitting reception of different sized containers.
Cai failed to disclose of at least one storage drawer slidable into and out of said drawer storage housing. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely stackable containers, Brunner 2 in figure 5A depicts a storage drawer slidable into and out of said drawer storage housing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of tool storage before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the sliding drawers as taught by Brunner 2 (figure 5A) for the raising door as disclosed by Cai since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, with the difference being the substitution of the elements. In the present case, a sliding drawer would allow access to the storage chamber while items are stacked on top. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the one known element for the other to produce a predictable result (MPEP 2143).
With respect to claim 27, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further teach wherein the storage module is capable selectively receiving and securing the first container on the top surface thereof by the first latching mechanism, the second latching mechanism, and the first tab or the second tab, and wherein the storage module is capable of selectively receiving and securing the second container on the top surface thereof by the first latching mechanism, the second latching mechanism and the second tab.
Examiner Note: A container is never positively recited in the invention. The container does not even have to be identical with the present invention. Can the storage module receive and secure a container between the latching mechanism and the first tab or second tab? Yes. For example, the container allows for glueing a small box on the top surface. Because the top surface is configured to allow glueing and placement of a small box between these features, the claimed limitation is met. This allowance means that the claimed limitation is met. “Between” can be interpreted as a locational range.
With respect to claim 28, the references as applied to claim 27, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further teach further comprising: a third tab (11 of Cai second steps can be viewed as duplication and not novel under the guidelines established In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)) provided on the second side adjacent to and projecting upward from the top surface, opposite the second latching mechanism; and a fourth tab (Brunner 1 taught of multiple guide rails) projecting upwardly from the top surface, between the second latching mechanism and the third tab, wherein the fourth tab is translatable along the top surface relative to the first and second sides, and wherein the storage module is further capable of selectively receiving and securing the first container on the top surface thereof by the first latching mechanism, the second latching mechanism, and the first and third tabs (2s of Cai on other side of latching mechanism), and wherein the storage module is capable of selectively receiving and securing the second container on the top surface thereof by the first latching mechanism, the second latching mechanism, and the second and fourth tabs.
With respect to claim 31, the references as applied to claim 23, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further teach wherein the storage housing is capable of selectively receiving and securing the first container on the top surface thereof the first latching mechanism, the second latching mechanism, and the first tab or the second tab, and wherein the storage housing is capable of selectively receiving and securing the second container on the top surface thereof by the first latching mechanism, the second latching mechanism, and the second tab.
Examiner Note: A container is never positively recited in the invention. The container does not even have to be identical with the present invention. Can the storage module receive and secure a theoretical container between the latching mechanism and the first tab or second tab? Yes. For example, the container allows for glueing a small box on the top surface. Because the top surface is configured to allow glueing and placement of a small box between these features, the claimed limitation is met. This allowance means that the claimed limitation is met.
With respect to claim 32, the references as applied to claim 31, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further teach wherein the drawer storage housing further comprises a third tab (11 of Cai second steps can be viewed as duplication and not novel under the guidelines established In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)) provided on the second side adjacent to and projecting upward from the top surface, opposite the second latching mechanism, and a fourth tab (Brunner taught of multiple guide rails) projecting upwardly from the top surface, between the second latching mechanism and the third tab, wherein the fourth tab is translatable along the top surface relative to the first and second sides, and wherein the storage housing is further capable of selectively receiving and securing the container on the top surface thereof the first latching mechanism, the second latching mechanism, and the first and third tabs (2s of Cai on other side of latching mechanism) , and wherein the storage housing is capable of selectively receiving and securing the second container on the top surface thereof by the first latching mechanism, the second latching mechanism, and the second and fourth tabs.
With respect to claim 33, the references as applied to claim 23, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the second tab includes a first projecting upward from the top surface and toward the first side and extending substantially parallel to the first latching mechanism and a second ledge projecting upward from the top surface toward the second side and extending substantially parallel to the first tab. Although not directly taught. Brunner 1 does teach of the second tab being a tool (as the guide rail allows tool storage). There are a variety of tools that meet this limitation, including a T-wrench or T-ratchet. Official Notice is taken that a T-wrench was notoriously well-known in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine tool storage to include a T-wrench with this well-known technique in order to utilize said tool. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a T-wrench or T-ratchet in the guide rail to have quick accessibility to said tool.
With respect to claim 35, the references as applied to claim 23, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further teach wherein the at least one storage drawer is slidable along a direction which is perpendicular to at least one of the first side and the second side. (This can be taught by the Brunner Reference. There are only a finite number of placements for the storage drawer. To meet this claim, two placements could be taught out of the four finite placements. It would have been obvious to try to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the drawer slidable along a direction perpendicular to either the first side or second side since there are only a finite number of predictable solutions. Either the drawer is slidable perpendicular or parallel relative the first or second side. Thus, making a drawer slidable in a direction perpendicular to the first or second side would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product was not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. See MPEP 2143.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 34 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening and overcome the 112b rejection (see above). Search results for prior art in this field failed to identify further comprising the second container, wherein: the second container includes first and second steps, would have been required along with the second latching mechanism formed on a bottom surface thereof and the container may be removably secured on the top surface by disposing the first step beneath the first latching mechanism or the first tab, and then moving the second tab towards the second container such that one of the first ledge or the second ledge overlies the second step. (Similar wording used between both claims).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-20040149754-A1, US-20120006837-A1, US-20170121056-A1, US-9724819-B2, US-20210154824-A1, US-11155382-B1, US-20220094185-A1, US-20220177191-A1, US-11485542-B2, US-20230150725-A1, US-20240150087-A1, US-20240200561-A1, US-12195229-B2.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the drawings, the replacement sheet do not appear to show any appropriate changes. The applicant showed appropriate corrected drawings during the interview of 8/3/2026. However, it appears that these drawings were not submitted.
Also during the interview, it was suggested that the applicant positively claim the additional containers. It appears that the amendments do not positively recite a container. The amendments discuss a capability of a first tab relative to another container. For example, “the storage module is capable of selectively receiving and securing a first container” as stated in claim 1 does not positively state the presence of the first container as part of the storage module. Instead it states that the storage module can achieve a functionality with a theoretical first container. The prior art is capable of achieving this functionality with a theoretical first container. As such, the prior art still reads.
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 extension fee 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 SYMREN K SANGHERA whose telephone number is (571)272-5305. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached on (571)272-4561. 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.
/SYMREN K SANGHERA/Examiner, Art Unit 3735
