DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14 & 16-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 13, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims and accompanying arguments, filed April 15, 2026, with respect to the rejected claims under 112(b), 102(a)(1) & 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the above rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made and presented below.
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 22-23 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. Claim 22 is indefinite because the claim depends upon cancelled Claim 11. Consequently, Claim 23 is rejected since it is dependent 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, 3, 9 & 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paul [US 6,658,677] in view of Edelen [US 2011/0179603]. Paul teaches of a fascia assembly (fig. 4) for a drawer (16), the fascia assembly comprising: a base plate (18); a frame (12) attachable to the base plate, the frame having a view opening (as shown in fig. 4); an insert (14) sized to be received and retained between the base plate and the frame and viewable through the view opening (fig. 2); hardware (22) installed on the insert; and at least one fastener (24) installed through the insert to fasten the hardware to the insert; wherein an aperture (26) is formed through the base plate to provide clearance for a fastener head (fig. 2) of the at least one fastener. Paul teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed assembly as outlined {mapped} above; but does not show the aperture being slotted to accommodate fastener patterns of various hardware assemblies. As to this aspect, Edelen is cited as an evidence reference for the known technique of providing a slotted (channel) aperture (113) within a component of a handle mounting assembly that is used upon a drawer to accept fasteners (134) in order to accommodate adjustability of a drawer pull. 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 Paul so as to include an elongated aperture, as opposed to a circular aperture, in view of Edelen’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing a degree of adjustability to the mounting of the hardware which would permit minor adjustments to the positioning of the hardware relative to the front of the drawer as dependent upon the needs and/or preferences of an end user. Regarding Claim 3, as modified, the insert further comprises a panel (component (14) is described as a “panel”). Regarding Claim 9, as modified, the frame further comprises an inherent fastener {such as mechanical fastener, adhesive etc.,} to fasten the frame to the base plate, i.e., Paul describes the frame (12) being “secured” to the base plate (18). Regarding Claim 12, as modified, the insert further comprises a plurality of interchangeable inserts, each sized to be received and retained between the base plate and the frame – Paul notes that one panel insert can be removed and another panel insert replaced, where a variety of panels may be used [end of col. 2 to the top of col. 3]. Regarding Claim 13, as modified, the indicia may be indicative of product information (such as a particular floral product).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 8, 10, 21 & 24-26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 22-23 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. It is noted that for examination purposes, Claim 22 was interpreted as being dependent upon Claim 10 since antecedent support for the claimed scope resides within Claim 10.
Conclusion
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
August 5, 2026
/James O Hansen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights