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 .
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 steel rods claimed in claim 9 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
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) 1-6, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘340 (KR101143340) in view of ‘675 (CN11521675).
For claim 1, ‘340 discloses a composite board, comprising a frame and a lining plate, wherein the lining plate is a wood board inlaid in the frame, and the frame comprises reinforcing pillars that closely fit the lining plate and are fixedly connected to the lining plate and the frame, respectively.
‘340 does not disclose that the frame is made of steel.
‘675 discloses the obviousness of making a cabinet body (fig. 1) of a steel-wood composite material (see technical field and background section of submitted translation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to make the frame of ‘340 of steel as made obvious by ‘675 to increase the strength of the composite board.
For claim 2, the combination discloses that the reinforcing pillar is a post (‘340 fig. 3, 320).
For claims 3-4, it would be obvious to make the lining plate have a thickness of 3mm since this merely involves a change of size of an already disclosed material to get predictable and expected results like a thin plate that is strong and durable for a filing cabinet.
For claim 5, the combination discloses a filing/drawer cabinet (‘340 fig. 2) using the modified steel-wood composite board of claim 1.
For claim 6, the combination discloses that the filing/drawer cabinet comprises a top plate (‘340 fig. 8, 100), lateral plates (300), a back plate (400), a bottom connecting member (200), and a drawer (‘340 fig. 500), wherein each of the lateral plates is made of the modified steel-wood composite board, two sides of the top plate being fixed to modified steel frames of the two lateral plates, respectively, two sides of the back plate being fixed to the modified steel frames of the two lateral plates, respectively, two lateral slides of the drawer being fixed to the modified steel frames of the two lateral plates, respectively, and two ends of the bottom connecting member being fixed to the modified steel frames of the two lateral plates, respectively (page 4 paragraphs 3 and 4).
For claim 10, the combination discloses that the steel frame has a bottom provided with a base, and the base comprises casters (‘675 fig. 1, 2).
Claim(s) 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘340 (KR101143340) in view of ‘675 (CN11521675) as set forth in the rejection of claim 6, and further in view of Beaver (US Patent No. 3,809,449).
For claim 7, the combination does not explicitly disclose that the modified steel frames are provided with a threaded hole for a screw to pass through so that the top plate and/or the back plate and/or the bottom connecting member are connected to the steel frame by the screw.
Beaver discloses the obviousness of adding holes (fig. 1, 230, 42, they can be threaded, see 174) to the steel frames of filing cabinet frames so that screws can be used to connect to the frames to plates of the cabinet.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to add threaded holes to the modified steel frames of the combination for a screw to pass through so that the top plate and/or the back plate and/or the bottom connecting member are connected to the steel frame by the screw as made obvious by Beaver to provide a means for the assembly to be mechanically connected by screws.
For claim 8, the combination discloses the obviousness of providing each of the steel frames with a fastening tongue (Beaver fig. 1, 42) and the fastening tongue is provided with a threaded hole for a screw to pass through so that the top plate and/or the back plate and/or the bottom connecting member are connected to the fastening tongue by the screw.
For claim 9, the combination discloses the obviousness of providing rods (Beaver fig. 1, 222, 228, it would be obvious to make them of steel also), wherein the rods and the steel frames are all provided with holes (it would be obvious to make them threaded, see threaded 174) for screws to pass through so that the top plate and/or the back plate and/or the bottom connecting member are connected to the steel rods by the screws, and the steel rods connects the two steel frames.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA K IHEZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5347. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm.
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, Brian Glessner can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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.
/JOSHUA K IHEZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633