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 .
The following correspondence is a Final Office Action for application no. 18/414,549 for an ANTI-OVERTURNING CABINET STRUCTURE, filed on 1/17/2024. This correspondence is in response to applicant's reply filed on 7/8/2025. Claims 1-8 are pending.
Priority
Applicant is advised of possible benefits under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f), wherein an application for patent filed in the United States may be entitled to claim priority to an application filed in a foreign country.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-8 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.
Claim 1 teaches that “each auxiliary wheel is locked in the second opening of the second fixing component” and “a ground bonding component passes through the second opening and locks with [a] ground fixing hole.” However, it does not appear possible for an auxiliary wheel and a ground bonding component to occupy space in the second opening simultaneously. It appears that applicant is using the second opening in both a transport manner (with the auxiliary wheel) and a stationary manner (with the ground bonding component) based on the location of the upper fixing area and the lower fixing area but does not clearly define structure regarding these areas. It is the Examiner’s position that the upper and lower fixing area of the cabinet can be encountered based on where the anti-turning devices is positioned on the cabinet within the slot holes, which allow the device to slide up and down and be fixed in a higher or lower area. Appropriation clarification is requested. Claims 2-8 are rejected for the same reasons as dependent on claim 1.
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.
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) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tin et al. (CN 209462768) and Shurhay (U.S. Pub. 2023/0007805).
Regarding claim 1, Ting discloses an anti-overturning cabinet structure, comprising: a cabinet, wherein a bottom outer surface of the cabinet has an upper fixing area and a lower fixing area; a plurality of anti-overturning devices, wherein each of the anti-overturning devices has a first fixing component, a second fixing component and a connecting part, the first fixing component is detachably fixed on the bottom outer surface of the cabinet, the second fixing component has at least one second opening (43, Fig. 3), and the connecting part is joined between the first fixing component and the second fixing component; wherein the anti-overturning devices comprises at least one first anti-overturning device and at least one second anti-overturning device, a number of the first anti-overturning devices is equal to a number of the second anti-overturning devices, they are disposed on two opposite sides of the upper fixing area or the lower fixing area (the upper or lower fixing area is dependent on the adjustability of the location of the screws 5 in slots 45); when the at least one first anti-overturning device and the at least one second anti-overturning device are fixed on the lower fixing area, the second opening on the surface of the second fixing component of the corresponding one of the at least one first anti-overturning device and the at least one second anti-overturning device corresponds to a position of a ground fixing hole on a ground, and a ground bonding component (anchor bolts, not shown) passes through the second opening and locks with the ground fixing hole, so as to fix the second fixing component to the ground. Ting fails to teach a plurality of auxiliary wheels, wherein when the at least one first anti-overturning device and the at least one second anti-overturning device are fixed on the upper fixing area, each auxiliary wheel is locked in the second opening of the second fixing component of a corresponding one of the at least one first anti-overturning device and the at least one second anti-overturning device through a fixing part and a screw component. However, Shurhay teaches auxiliary wheels (201, Fig. 17), wherein each auxiliary wheel is locked in the second opening of the second fixing component (208) of a corresponding one of the at least one first anti-overturning device and the at least one second anti-overturning device through a fixing part (hole) and a screw component (component is shown, but not labeled) for transport. 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 Ting's invention with Shurhay's auxiliary wheels, wherein when the at least one first anti-overturning device and the at least one second anti-overturning device are fixed on the upper fixing area, each auxiliary wheel is locked in the second opening of the second fixing component of a corresponding one of the at least one first anti-overturning device and the at least one second anti-overturning device through a fixing part and a screw component in order to provide a secure transport caster bracket for relocation and stability.
[AltContent: textbox (cabinet)]
[AltContent: textbox (2nd fixing component)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (connecting part)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (1st fixing component)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Anti-overturn devices)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (bottom surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
308
568
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Ting discloses wherein the at least one first anti-overturning device is disposed on a front side of the upper fixing area, the at least one second anti-overturning device is disposed on a back side of the upper fixing area, and a position of the at least one first anti-overturning device correspond to a position of the at least one second anti-overturning device.
Regarding claim 3, Ting discloses wherein the at least one first anti-overturning device is disposed on a front side of the lower fixing area, the at least one second anti-overturning device is disposed on a back side of the lower fixing area, and a position of the at least one first anti-overturning device corresponds to a position of the at least one second anti-overturning device.
Regarding claim 4, Ting in view of Shurhay does not state the following, wherein an anti-overturning distance is used to calculate an anti-overturning angle, and a calculation formula of the anti-overturning angle is as follows: tan-1 L1+L3 / L2; wherein in the calculation formula, L1 is the anti-overturning distance, L2 is a vertical distance from a gravity center of the cabinet to a bottom surface of the cabinet, and L3 is a horizontal distance from the gravity center of the cabinet to an outer surface of the cabinet. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ting's invention with the formula of claim 4. Doing so would provide an anti-overturning distance and angle for preventing the cabinet from overturning.
Regarding claim 5, Ting discloses wherein one end of the first fixing component is joined to one end of the second fixing component.
Regarding claim 6, Ting discloses wherein the first fixing component is vertical to the second fixing component.
Regarding claim 7, Ting discloses wherein the connecting part comprises two connecting plates, and the connecting plates are respectively joined to both sides of the first fixing component and the second fixing component.
Regarding claim 8, Ting discloses wherein the connecting part comprises a connecting plate, and the connecting plate is joined to two adjacent surfaces of the first fixing component and the second fixing component.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/8/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the anti-overturning devices are detached to a bottom outer surface of the cabinet, where there is an upper fixing area and a lower fixing area. The upper and lower fixing area of the cabinet can be encountered based on where the anti-turning devices is positioned on the cabinet within the slot holes, which allow the device to slide up and down and be fixed in a higher or lower area.
Conclusion
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 NKEISHA J. SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-5781. The examiner can normally be reached Normal hours: M/Th 7-4; T 9-5; W 7-3; F 7-4.
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.
/NKEISHA SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632 October 17, 2025