DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on February 4, 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of the Group I invention in the reply is acknowledged. It is noted that applicant did not provide remarks regarding the traversal; and as such, a lack of grounds cannot be viewed as a persuasive rebuttal.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 11, 2026 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. In Claim 1, lines 3-4, the phrase “the primary structural support” does not have a proper antecedent basis; additionally, in line 5, the phrase “the top-horizontal portion of the frame” does not have a proper antecedent basis. In Claim 2, lines 6-7, the phrase “the most exterior portion” does not have a proper antecedent basis. In Claim 7, the phrases “the outer point”, “the frame lip” line 2 respectively; and “the magnets” line 7 do not have a proper antecedent basis. For examination purposes, Claim 7 will be viewed as being dependent upon Claim 2 since Claim 2 provides support for the outer point and frame lip recitations. In Claim 9, the 6, the phrase “the top-horizontal portion of the frame” does not have a proper antecedent basis. In Claim 10, line 6, the phrase “one panel is attached to the cabinet by the magnet” is deemed unclear and confusing since it is not readily known which of the magnets is being referenced in this context. Consequently, the remaining claims are rejected since they are dependent, either directly or indirectly, upon an indefinite 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 1-2, 5 & 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bridges et al., [US 4,235,493]. Bridges teaches of an apparatus (fig. 9 for instance) comprising: a cabinet (108) capable of supporting an enclosure (i.e., the top of the cabinet is flat and the cabinet is sturdy), wherein the cabinet comprises a frame (such as 110) to provide the primary structural support for the cabinet; a head jamb (124) of the frame located at a top-horizontal portion of the frame; a vertical jamb (112) of the frame of the cabinet that is attached to the head jamb to provide stability for the cabinet; a base jamb (126) of the frame of the cabinet that is attached to the vertical jamb to provide stability for the cabinet; a housing (viewed as the housing of the magnetic catch (144) – note figure 9) that is attached to a bottom panel (130) of the cabinet; a magnet (the magnet inside of the magnetic catch (144)) at least partially encased in the housing (shown); and a panel (56) removably attached to the frame by magnetically connecting to the magnet encased within the housing via (145), wherein when attached to the frame by magnet connection, the panel at least partially closes the cabinet (as is conventional in the art when a door closes upon a cabinet). Bridges teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed apparatus as outlined {mapped} above, but does not show the housing as being attached to the head jamb. As to the housing’s placement within the cabinet, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus by rearranging the mounted located of the housing (such as from the bottom of the cabinet to the top of the cabinet – and specifically the head jamb along the top of the cabinet), with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that rearranging parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art and therefore will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.). As modified, the latching operation of the magnetic housing assembly would not be affected upon placement and would equally perform whether mounted along a top, a bottom or the side opposite the hinged side of the panel for example. Regarding Claim 2, as modified, the apparatus further comprising a frame lip (shown as the flanged structure along the vertical jamb for instance – fig. 10) located on the exterior of at least one of the head jamb, the base jamb, and the vertical jamb, wherein the frame lip comprises an outer point (viewed as the exterior facing corner point of the flanged lip) and an inner point (viewed as the inner in-turned lip point) forming an oblique angle to each other (such as when a plane is drawn to the edge of the corner point to the tip of the lip point for instance), wherein the frame lip further comprises a lip exterior (viewed as the outer facing vertical exterior surface) that is a most exterior portion of the frame lip. Regarding Claim 5, as modified, the cabinet, the frame, the frame lip, and the panel can be comprised of aluminum to provide resistance to rusting (Bridges notes that aluminum can be used as a functional equivalent of the sheet metal when available in view of its resistance to corrosion and greater stiffness per unit weight). Regarding Claim 8, as modified, the material of the housing is not specified; however, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a varying array of known materials for the manufacture of the housing, with a reasonable expectation of success, depending upon the personal preferences of the designer and/or the designated environment for the finished product since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bridges et al., in view of Lambright [US 5,820,238]. Bridges teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed apparatus as outline above, including the housing having an inherent fastening means for connecting the magnetic catch to the cabinet, but does not show a screw attachment. As to this connective feature, Lambright is cited as an evidence reference for the known use of a screw (168) used to mount a magnetic catch (166) along a structure of a cabinet in order to secure a door (120) closed to the cabinet in an analogous art. 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 Bridges so as to mount the magnetic catch to the cabinet via a screw in view of Lambright’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing an easy and economical way of fastening the magnetic catch to the cabinet in order to enable a secure mounting of the catch. As modified, the screw would be partially encased within the housing, and made of a known material {just not specified}; however, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a varying array of known materials for the manufacture of the mounting screw, with a reasonable expectation of success, depending upon the personal preferences of the designer and/or the designated environment for the finished product since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); and In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bridges et al., in view of Moulton et al., [US 5,295,743]. Bridges teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed apparatus as outline above, but does not show a cable management box affixed within the cabinet that is accessible through the interior of the cabinet. As to this feature, Moulton is cited as an evidence reference for the known use of a cable management box (127) affixed within a cabinet (fig. 1) and accessible through the interior of the cabinet (fig. 5) in an analogous art. 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 Bridges so as to incorporate a cable management box within the cabinet in view of Moulton’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing a means by which wiring associated with the cabinet can be conveniently routed / secured for whatever purpose desired by an end user [col. 7 of Moulton].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 & 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 9-16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure – see the attached Form PTO-892 showing various cabinet assemblies with removable panels.
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.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. 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.
JOH
March 16, 2026
/James O Hansen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637