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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/23/26 has been entered.
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 1-9, 11-12, & 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crabtree (20080042532) in view of Derelov (20150078819).
Regarding claims 1 & 17, Crabtree teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a cabinet comprising two side panels (24, 26), a top panel (28), a bottom panel (30), a back panel (32), and a rectangular front face frame (22), wherein a side (at 40 & 42) of the front face frame is facing a front facing edge (54, 74, 98, 118) of each of the two side panels, top panel, and bottom panel, each front facing edge comprises an integrally formed and elongate protruding section (54, 74, 98, 118), the rectangular front face frame comprises elongate grooves (40, 42). Crabtree fail(s) to teach longitudinal recesses & flexible locking elements.
PNG
media_image1.png
223
571
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Derelov teaches locking means (Fig. 1b) comprising an elongate groove (21) configured to cooperate an elongate protruding section (22) for a mechanical locking, wherein the elongate groove comprises a longitudinal recess (10) on a side of the elongate groove, wherein the elongate protruding section comprises a flexible locking element (30) arranged in a longitudinal insertion recess (20), wherein the flexible locking element of the elongate protruding section is configured to cooperate with the longitudinal recess of the elongate groove for a mechanical locking (Fig. 1b & par. 69), wherein of the elongate groove comprises opposing inner (H in Fig. 1b Annotated) and outer (J) sides, wherein the inner side is closer than the outer side to a center of a rectangular front face (Fig. 1b), wherein the longitudinal recess of the elongate groove is on the inner side of the elongate groove, and wherein the outer side of the elongate groove is free of any longitudinal recess configured to receive any flexible locking element of the elongate protruding section during locking (Fig. 1b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute locking means, as taught by Derelov, for each of the elongate grooves & elongate protruding sections of Crabtree, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to increase user convenience by allowing the panels to be assembled without tools (as suggested by par. 5 of Derelov), and because such an outcome would have been a predictable result of such a substitution of one known locking means for another.
Additionally, mere reversal & rearrangement of parts has been held to involve only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reposition each of longitudinal recesses & locking elements to be on an outer side of one of the elongate grooves of Crabtree as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to strengthen the connection between the outer sides of the top, bottom, & side panels and the outer edges of the front face frame & back panel. Hence, Crabtree as modified would teach a longitudinal recess (10 of Derelov) of each of the elongate grooves (21 of Derelov) is on the outer side (J of Derelov) of each of the elongate grooves, and wherein the inner side (H) of each of the elongate grooves is free of any longitudinal recess configured to receive any flexible locking element (30 of Derelov) of the elongate protruding sections (22 of Derelov) during locking.
Regarding claim 2, Derelov teaches a flexible locking element (30) configured to be compressed towards a bottom surface (as in Fig. 11c & par. 118) of a longitudinal insertion recess (20).
Regarding claim 3, Crabtree as modified teaches a longitudinal recess (10 of Derelov) of an upper (42 of Crabtree) and a lower (42 of Crabtree) of the elongate grooves (40, 42 of Crabtree), respectively, of the front face frame (22 of Crabtree) that are located on a side of the elongate grooves closest to their respective edge (as in par. 6 above).
Regarding claim 4, Crabtree as modified teaches edges of a back panel (32) each comprising an elongate protruding section (22 of Derelov at 140 of Crabtree) which is configured to cooperate with a matching elongate groove (21 of Derelov at 62 & 82 of Crabtree) of each of the two side panels (24, 26 of Crabtree) for a mechanical locking (as in Fig. 1b of Derelov).
Regarding claim 5, Crabtree as modified teaches a back edge (i.e., rear edge of 28 of Crabtree) of the top panel (28 of Crabtree) and a back edge (i.e., rear edge of 30 of Crabtree) of the bottom panel (30 of Crabtree) each comprise an elongate protruding section (22 of Derelov) which is configured to cooperate with a matching elongate groove (21 of Derelov at 138 of Crabtree) of the back panel (32 of Crabtree) for a mechanical locking (as in Fig. 1b of Derelov).
Regarding claim 6, Crabtree as modified teaches side edges (94, 96 of Crabtree) of a top panel (28 of Crabtree) and sides edges (114, 116 of Crabtree) of the bottom panel (30 of Crabtree) each comprise an elongate protruding section (22 of Derelov) which is configured to cooperate with a matching upper or lower elongate groove (21 of Derelov at 58 & 78 of Crabtree) of each of the two side panels (24, 26 of Crabtree) for a mechanical locking (as in Fig. 1b of Derelov).
Regarding claim 7, Crabtree as modified teaches an elongate protruding section (22 of Derelov) of one or more of the edges comprises a flexible locking element (30 of Derelov) arranged in a longitudinal insertion recess (20 of Derelov), and wherein the flexible locking element is configured to cooperate with the longitudinal recess (10 of Derelov) of the matching elongate groove (21 of Derelov) for a mechanical locking (as in Fig. 1b of Derelov).
Regarding claims 8-9 & 12, Crabtree as modified teaches a longitudinal recess (10 of Derelov) of an upper and a lower of the elongate grooves (21 of Derelov at 58, 78, 138 of Crabtree), respectively, of the side panels (24, 26 of Crabtree) & the back panel (32 of Crabtree) are located on the side of each of the upper and the lower of the elongate grooves closest to their respective edge (as in par. 6 above).
Regarding claim 11, Crabtree teaches upper & lower elongate grooves (42, 58, 78, 138) of each of the side panels (24, 26), the back panel (32), and the front face frame (22), respectively, that are at an edge distance from their respective edges (Fig. 1), wherein the top panel (28) and/or the bottom panel (30) has a panel thickness (Fig. 1), wherein the edge distance is in the range of 0.2 to 5 times the panel thickness (see Fig. 1, showing the edge distance to be ~2.67 times the panel thickness).
Regarding claim 15, Crabtree teaches side panels (24, 26), a top panel (28), a bottom panel (30), a back panel (32), and a rectangular front face frame (22) that comprise wood based materials (par. 24).
Regarding claim 16, Crabtree as modified teaches a longitudinal recess (10 of Derelov) on the outer side (J of Derelov) of the at least one of the elongate grooves (21 of Derelov) is the only longitudinal recess (as in Fig. 1b of Derelov), in the at least one of the elongate grooves, configured to receive any flexible locking element (30 of Derelov) of the elongate protruding sections (22 of Derelov) during locking.
Claims 10 & 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crabtree (20080042532) & Derelov (20150078819) in view of Pervan (20170089379).
Regarding claim 10, Crabtree as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including flexible locking elements (30 of Derelov) made of an unspecified material; but fail(s) to teach polymer flexible locking elements. However, Pervan teaches making a flexible locking element (3) from a polymer material (i.e., thermoplastic). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make each of the flexible locking elements of Crabtree as modified from a polymer material, as taught by Pervan, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce the cost & weight of the cabinet.
Regarding claim 13, Crabtree as modified teaches elongate protruding sections (22) and elongate grooves (21); but fails to teach a longitudinal beveled surface & an elongate beveled surface. However, Pervan teaches the inclusion, on a elongate protruding section (12), of an elongated indent (at 24) on one side of a panel with a longitudinal beveled surface (24) between the elongated indent and the panel side (2a); and the inclusion, on an elongate groove (6), of an elongate beveled surface (20) at a side of the elongate groove that corresponds to the longitudinal beveled surface (24) of the elongate protruding section (Figs. 4a-4c), wherein the longitudinal beveled surface and the elongate beveled surface are optionally parallel (Figs. 4b-4c). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art add longitudinal & elongate beveled surfaces, as taught by Pervan, to the protruding parts & elongate grooves, respectively, of Crabtree as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve concealment of the protruding parts & elongate grooves (as suggested by par. 71 of Pervan), thereby improving the aesthetics of the cabinet by providing a cleaner, more finished appearance.
Regarding claim 14, Crabtree as modified teaches a longitudinal recess (10 of Derelov) of at least one of the elongate grooves (21 of Derelov) that is on the same side of at least one of the elongate grooves (as in Figs. 4a-4c of Pervan) as the elongate beveled surface (20 of Pervan).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to reposition each of longitudinal recesses & locking elements of Crabtree as modified to be on an outer side of one of the elongate grooves, because “[i]f the applicant has demonstrated the criticality of a specific limitation, it would not be appropriate to rely solely on case law as the rationale to support an obviousness rejection”, and “the arrangement with the longitudinal recess 12 located closest to the outer side of the elongate groove 10 can advantageously reduce the risk of gaps that are visible from inside a cabinet” (Remarks at 9). However, when a claimed structure simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform, and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious. Such is the case here.
The claimed structure merely an arranges old element (i.e., the longitudinal recess (10) of Derelov, and hence of Crabtree as modified by Derelov) on the outer side of the elongate groove instead of the inner side. The longitudinal recess, along with the associated flexible locking element and longitudinal insertion recess, still performs the same function it has been known to perform - namely, connecting one panel to another panel. And even if this arrangement yields the outcome of “reduc[ing] the risk of gaps that are visible from inside a cabinet”, such an outcome is no more than one would expect from such an arrangement. Or, put another way, there is no evidence that such an outcome constitutes an unexpected result of rearranging the longitudinal recess on the outer side of the elongate groove instead of the inner side.
Admittedly, in p. 4, lines 8-11, the written description of the instant application does state, “the longitudinal recesses of the upper and lower grooves in the side panels are located on the side of the grooves closest to their respective edges. This allows for variations in thickness of the panels minimizing any potential gap.” And on p. 8, lines 6-8, the written description of the instant application further notes, “The left side of the vertically arranged panel 4, 5 is flat which means that any variations in the thickness of the horizontally arranged panel 2, 3, should not create a gap between the panels that is visible from the inside of the cabinet.” However, neither of these excerpts gives any indication that “reduc[ing] the risk of gaps that are visible from inside a cabinet” is an unexpected result. And even if such indications were indeed given, these excerpts are also mere conclusory statements, unaccompanied by any supporting evidence (e.g., experimental data, test results, etc.) either elsewhere in the specification or in any other portion of the instant application’s prosecution history. Such conclusory statements in the specification, unsupported by objective evidence, are insufficient to establish unexpected results. Hence, the above-quoted excerpts from the written description of the instant application fail to provide sufficient evidence that rearranging the longitudinal recess on the outer side of the elongate groove, instead of the inner side, yields an unexpected result. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 MATTHEW ING whose telephone number is (571)272-6536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 a.m. - 5 p.m.. 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.
/MATTHEW W ING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637