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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the reply filed on 11/6/2025, wherein claims 1, 5, 7, 11, 13, 15 were amended, claims 3-4 are cancelled. Claims 1-2 and 5-18 are pending. Claims 8-10, 12, 14, 16 and 18 are withdrawn.
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.
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) 1-2, 5-7, 11, 13, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amazon Towallmark (see webpage attached) in view of Kershner (US 0722450 A).
With respect to claim 1, Towallmark discloses toolbox for the storage of various tools comprising: a container provided with a ratchet tool slot sequentially having a head section, a first wide section, and a first narrow section along the first reference line, wherein a width direction of the ratchet tool slot is transverse to the first reference line and the head section (figure 1 zoom) has a first width, wherein the first wide section is provided with two first wide section protrusions (above/below ratchet in figure 1 zoom), each protruding from different sides of an inner periphery of the first wide section, and a distance between the two first wide section protrusions has a second width, which is smaller than the first width, and wherein the first narrow section is provided with two first narrow section protrusions (above/below ratchet in figure 1 zoom), each protruding from different sides of an inner periphery of the first narrow section, and a distance between the first narrow section protrusions has a third width ((above/below ratchet in figure 1 zoom), and a cover (bottom portion of Towallmark) configured to selectively open and close the container, wherein the [container] (see teaching reasoning below) is provided with an extension rod slot (figure 2), wherein the extension rod slot has a first end and a second end opposite to the first end along an extension line, and a distance between the first and the second ends is of a first length (first end to second end), wherein the extension rod slot is provided with two first protrusions (figure 2), each protruding from different sides of an inner periphery of the extension rod slot, and a distance from each of the two first protrusions to the first end is of a second length (L2), wherein the extension rod slot is provided with two second protrusions (figure 2), each protruding from different sides of the inner periphery of the extension rod slot, and a distance from each of the two second protrusions to the first end is of a third length (L3), and wherein both the second and the third lengths are not greater than 0.5 times the first length, wherein the two first protrusions are more adjacent to the first end than the two second protrusions, wherein the extension rod slot is provided with two third protrusions (figure 2), each protruding from different sides of the inner periphery of the extension rod slot, and a distance from each of the two third protrusions to the second end is of a fourth length (L4), wherein the fourth length is not greater than 0.5 times the first length, wherein the extension rod slot is provided with two fourth protrusions (figure 2), each protruding from different sides of the inner periphery of the extension rod slot, and a distance from each of the two fourth protrusions to the second end is of a fifth length (L5), which is smaller than the fourth length, and wherein the two fourth protrusions are more adjacent to the second end than the two third protrusions.
Towallmark failed to disclose of a third width which is smaller than the second width. Presently, it is not clear if the third width is smaller than the second width. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely tools, Kershner taught of a wrench that has a variable handle length (figure 1). If Towallmarks device is adapted to fit a ratchet with variable handle length (like Kershners) the third width would be smaller than the second width. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of tools and tool boxes before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include to include third width that is smaller than the second width by storing a ratchet as taught by Kershner in the ratchet slot of Towallmark since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case Towallmark teaches a rachet slot and adding a smaller width to the narrow section (as dictated by the ratchet stored) as taught by Kershner would maintain the same functionality of the Towallmark, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
Although Towallmark includes its extension rod slot in its cover, it can be understood that the labeled extension slot can be transitioned to the container side. Both the extension rod slot and ratchet tool slot can be included in a container as a result of a simple readjustment of features. This adjustment would not be considered novel under the guidelines established In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) which held the use of claimed feature solves no stated problem and presents no unexpected result and “would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.” The application has presented no argument which shows that the particular configuration of their slots for the storing tools is significant or is anything more than one of numerous configurations a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of allowing tool storage from Towallmarks invention. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459.
Examiner Note: Webpage for amazon link: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BD3WMCXY/ref=sspa_dk_detail_6?pd_rd_i=B0BD3WMCXY&pd_rd_w=JTA3O&content-id=amzn1.sym.7446a9d1-25fe-4460-b135-a60336bad2c9&pf_rd_p=7446a9d1-25fe-4460-b135-a60336bad2c9&pf_rd_r=KJAR7XJ1YHCREKW501FM&pd_rd_wg=UfaC4&pd_rd_r=84484de5-959f-4444-95c8-35295d2b240e&sp_csd=d2lkZ2V0TmFtZT1zcF9kZXRhaWw&th=1
PNG
media_image1.png
568
1042
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
818
1430
media_image2.png
Greyscale
**Screenshot taken from video
PNG
media_image3.png
573
1043
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Towallmark further teaches wherein the first width is greater than 2 times the second width and less than 4 times the second width. (Towallmark meets this limitation using a rough measurement method of comparing lines disposed lines on both items.) Even if argued that Towallmark does not meet this limitation, it can be argued that a specific width meeting this range, can be considered as a change of shape of Towallmarks design and not novel in view of the guidelines established In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). As both devices are designed to store a ratchet tool.
With respect to claim 5, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Towallmark further teaches wherein the fifth length (L5) is greater than 1.5 times the second length (L2) and less than 3 times the second length. Note: Length can be selected to ensure this ratio is met.
With respect to claim 6, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Towallmark further teaches wherein the container is provided with an F-rod slot sequentially having a second wide section (figure 3 zoom) and a second narrow section (figure 3 zoom) along a second reference line, wherein the second wide section is provided with two second wide section protrusions (figure 3 zoom), each protruding from different sides of an inner periphery of the second wide section, and a distance between the two second wide section protrusions is of a fourth width (width of features identified in figure 3), wherein the two second narrow section is provided with two second narrow section protrusions (Figure 3 zoom), each protruding from different sides of an inner periphery of the second narrow section, and a distance between the two second narrow section protrusions is of a fifth width (width of features identified in Figure 3), which is smaller than the fourth width, wherein the F-rod slot has a side extension (Figure 3 zoom) extending transversely to the second reference line connected to and extending from the second wide section and adjacent to an end opposite to an end that is connected to the second narrow section, and wherein the side extension has a width not less than the fourth width.
With respect to claim 7, the references as applied to claim 6, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Towallmark further teaches wherein the ratchet tool slot is located between the extension rod slot and the F-rod slot (refer to arrangement rationale in claim 3), wherein the ratchet tool slot includes the head section adjacent to the second end and the first narrow section adjacent to the first end (refer to figure 2 for ends and figure 3 for part labels), and wherein the F-rod slot includes the side extension adjacent to the first end and the second narrow section adjacent to the first end (refer to figure 2 for ends and figure 3 for part labels). Arrangement is obvious in view of In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) as taught in claim 1 rejection above.
With respect to claim 11, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein a width direction of the container is transverse to the first length, and wherein the container has a width not greater than 0.5 times the first length. However, it is considered as a change of shape of Grooms design and not novel in view of the guidelines established In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). The implementation of a specific container width relative to a length is only a modification in the shape of the container of Towallmarks inventions and still provides the same results as Towallmark (i.e. storage of elongated tools). The application has presented no argument which shows that the particular ratio for the shape of the toolbox is significant or is anything more than one of numerous configurations a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of allowing part storage from Towallmarks invention. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459.
With respect to claim 13, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the container has opposing lateral sides and a front side, wherein the container includes at least one fastening element on each lateral side and at least one fastening element of the front side and where in fastening elements are configured to engage with the cover when the toolbox is closed by the cover. Towallmark teaches of fastening elements connected to the front side of the toolbox. Duplication of this feature on adjacent sides would not be considered novel under the guidelines established In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) which held the use of claimed feature solves no stated problem and presents no unexpected result and “would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.” The application has presented no argument which shows that the particular configuration of their fastening elements is significant or is anything more than one of numerous configurations a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of allowing locking of the cover from Towallmarks invention. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459.
With respect to claim 15, the references as applied to claim 13, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the container comprises one fastening element on each lateral side and two fastening elements on the front side. Towallmark teaches of hitches connected to the front side of the toolbox. This would not be considered novel under the guidelines established In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) which held the use of claimed feature solves no stated problem and presents no unexpected result and “would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.” The application has presented no argument which shows that the particular configuration of their hitches is significant or is anything more than one of numerous configurations a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of allowing locking of the cover from Towallmarks invention. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459.
With respect to claim 17, the references as applied to claim 11, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Towallmark further teaches wherein a height direction of the container is transverse to both the width direction of the container and the first length, and wherein the container has a height not greater than 0.5 times the first length.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-0722450-A OR US-0743942-A OR US-0781305-A OR US-0798892-A OR US-20080083633-A1OR US-5083664-A.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/6/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the prior art, the applicant failed to point out any specific deficiencies in the rejections of claims 3 and 4. Claims 3 and 4 have been incorporated into independent claim 1.
Applicant argues that Kershner is unrelated art. However, Kershner relates to the art because it is a tool. Towallmarks invention is a tool case and which features tools. Kershner is brought in to teach of a wrench of specific sizing that would require a different size slot in the toolbox. Kershner teaches of alternate wrench shapes and can be applied to Towallmark by teaching the need for different size slots based on different wrench shapes.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 11/6/2025, with respect to 112b rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 8/8/2025 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 SYMREN K SANGHERA whose telephone number is (571)272-5305. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached on (571)272-4561. 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.
/S.K.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/ERNESTO A GRANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735