DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims and accompanying arguments, filed March 16, 2026, have been fully considered and are deemed persuasive. The amendments to Claim 1 have been reviewed, and while raising a clarity issue (see below), are deemed sufficient in obviating the outstanding 102(a)(1) & 103 rejections as previously set forth. Upon further consideration, the arguments with respect to the claimed scope are moot because the arguments do not apply to the obviousness rejection as presently mapped in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1, 10 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 as presently amended includes subject matter that is not defined within the disclosure as originally filed. For example, the specification is silent regarding a “torsion spring” with an annular curled structure as presently defined. Consequently, the remaining claims are rejected since they are dependent, either directly or indirectly, upon a rejected 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.
Claims 1, 10 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng [US 7,264,319] in view of Marino [US 5,743,605]. Cheng teaches of a storage box (fig. 1), comprising two first side walls (left and right side walls of (11)), a second side wall (rear side wall in between the left and right side walls – fig. 1) and a bottom wall (bottom wall), the two first side walls are connected to two sides of the second side wall, respectively; and the two first side walls are opposite to each other, the second side wall and the two first side walls are fixedly connected to the bottom wall, respectively (col 2, discloses the body (11) as being a solid body composed of five rectangular panels defining an internal space); the bottom wall, the second side wall and the two first side walls are enclosed together to form a first accommodation space (internal space); a cover (72) and a drawer (12), wherein the cover is connected to a side (top side) of the second side wall away from the bottom wall (as shown in fig. 1) and is capable of rotating relative to the second side wall (shown), the drawer is installed in the first accommodation space and is capable of sliding towards or away from the second side wall (note figs. 1-3); and a locking member (shown in figs. 1-3), the locking member comprises an inherent first section (viewed as the inherent leaf section of the hinge [i.e., the part that allows for pivotal movement of the cover relative to the cabinet body] that is attached to the cover and would be above the knuckle of the hinge as shown along the top of the cabinet body and along the bottom of the cover as depicted in fig. 1), a spring section (viewed as the knuckle shown along the top of the cabinet body and along the bottom of the cover – fig. 1, along with (74)) and a second section (14) which are an integrated structure [an “integrated structure” being interpreted as ‘combines separate components or functional units into a single, cohesive, and harmonious whole that functions cooperatively’], and the first section is located at an end of the spring section (upper end of the spring section) adjacent to the cover and is fixedly connected to the cover (as readily evident), the second section is located at an end of the spring section (lower end of the spring section) adjacent to the first accommodation space and extends into the first accommodation space; the first section is capable of rotating relative to the second section via the spring section (the first section rotates with the cover); with a rotation of the cover relative to the second side wall, the second section is capable of moving to insert into the drawer (via uppermost (62) for instance) and blocking the drawer from moving away from the second side wall (note bottom drawer of fig. 3 for instance); or, the second section is capable of moving out of the drawer to allow the drawer to move away from the second side wall (fig. 2 for instance); wherein an end of the second section (such as the bottom end) away from the spring section is configured as a hook (such as the lowermost hook (62) for instance) bent away from the second side wall (i.e., the rear side wall – note fig. 2). Cheng teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed storage box, but does not show the spring section as including a torsion spring located between the first and second sections with ends of the spring section being connected to the first and second sections. As to this aspect, Marino is cited as an evidence reference for the known incorporation of a torsion spring (i.e., a coiled spring provided around a hinge bar – col. 5, lines 57-59) included within a spring section (knuckle of a hinge – 10B) where the hinge further includes first and second sections (10A’s) connected to opposing ends of the spring section in an analogous art, where the hinges (40) are coupled to a cover (14) of a storage box (12). Accordingly, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Cheng so as to impart a “torsion spring” with annular structure as the spring section in view of Marino’s teaching (as best understood in view of the 112(a) issue), with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device since the incorporation of a torsion spring (i.e., the spring section) between the first and section sections of the hinge would providing a biasing force to the cover, such that when the cover is lifted upward (either by manual force or an unlatching of a locking means), the biasing force of the spring section would assist in the raising of the cover as dictated by the needs and/or preferences of an end user. Regarding Claim 10, as modified, the storage box further comprises a guide (13), the guide is fixed on the second side wall, and the second section is slidably installed in the guide (disclosed). Regarding Claim 18, as modified, Cheng teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed storage box as outlined {mapped} above; but does not give specific sizing or dimensions of the box as prescribed by applicant. As to this aspect, the position is taken that it would have been an obvious matter of personal preference to vary the shape or size of an element or to vary the distances between elements depending upon the needs and/or preferences of the user, with a reasonable expectation of success, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size or configuration of a component. A change of this degree is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant). Furthermore, the Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Conclusion
As an aside, it is noted that withdrawn Claims 2, 4-8, 11-17 & 19-20 are still pending in the application and will need to be addressed in the event the application proceeds towards allowance.
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 JAMES O HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6866. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 am - 4:30 pm.
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, 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.
JOH
April 15, 2026
/James O Hansen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights