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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 19 January 2026, with respect to the objections to claims 1 and 14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections of 19 September 2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the prior art rejections of claims 1, 7 and 13 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant argues that Trinh (US-10094146-B2) teaches away from the claimed arrangement of the cabinet-door latch and cabinet-door catch on the cabinet panel and cabinet frame, respectively. However, the Examiner notes that these arrangements are instead disclosed by first (Fig. 27) and second (Fig. 31) embodiments of Forrest (US-12091893-B2), which are presented as alternative, discrete configurations corresponding to the claimed first and second configurations. Trinh is relied upon solely as teaching a hinge allowing a single cabinet-door catch to be installed in multiple configurations. Therefore, Trinh does not teach away from the configurations disclosed by Forrest, and claims 1-20 remain rejected.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forrest (US-12091893-B2) in view of Trinh (US-10094146-B2). All citations refer to the Forrest reference unless otherwise noted.
With regards to claim 1, Forrest discloses a cabinet lock (Figure 1A) comprising:
a cabinet-door latch (200 Figure 1A) configured to be fixed to a cabinet panel (20 Figure 1A) for movement with the cabinet panel between a closed position blocking access to a cabinet opening and an opened position exposing the cabinet opening (Col. 3 Lines 51-67),
a cabinet-door catch (500 Figure 2A) configured to be attached to a cabinet frame (25 Figure 1A) bordering the cabinet opening that is closed by the cabinet panel, the cabinet-door catch including a catch body (502 Figure 31), an adhesive layer coupled to the catch body and configured to secure the cabinet-door catch to the cabinet frame (Col. 8 Lines 30-37), and a catch lip (404 Figure 31) coupled to the catch body and configured to engage selectively with the cabinet-door latch when the cabinet panel is closed to block the cabinet panel from opening (Col. 3 Lines 51-67),
wherein the catch body includes a first body panel (508 Figure 32) coupled to the catch lip, a second body panel (514 Figure 32) spaced apart from the first body panel and the catch lip, so that the cabinet-door catch can be attached to the cabinet frame in a second configuration in which the first and second body panels of the catch body are arranged to lie along respective planes at an angle to one another.
Forrest further discloses a second cabinet-door catch (400 Figure 1A) comprising the same elements as the first catch but configured to be attached in a first configuration in which the first and second body panels (408, 412 Figure 28) of the catch body are arranged to lie along a common plane (Col. 7 Line 63 – Col. 8 Line 43).
Forrest does not disclose a single cabinet door catch having a living hinge interconnecting the first body panel and the second body panel.
However, Trinh teaches a similar cabinet door catch (140 Figure 29) having first and second body panels (141, 143 Figure 29) and a living hinge (86 Figure 29) interconnecting the first body panel and the second body panel of the catch body so that the cabinet-door catch can be attached to the cabinet frame in a first configuration (Figure 30) in which the first and second body panels of the catch body are arranged to lie along a common plane, and in a second configuration (Figure 32) in which the catch body is bent about the living hinge (Col. 14 Lines 27-30) so that the first and second body panels of the catch body are arranged to lie along respective planes at an angle to one another. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Trinh’s hinge configuration and teachings to modify Forrest’s cabinet door catch such that it can be attached to the cabinet frame in a first configuration in which the first and second body panels of the catch body are arranged to lie along a common plane, and in a second configuration in which the catch body is bent about the living hinge so that the first and second body panels of the catch body are arranged to lie along respective planes at an angle to one another, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to create such a catch so that the cabinet lock can be used with an increased variety of cabinet configurations.
With regards to claim 2, Forrest in view of Trinh teaches the cabinet lock of claim 1, wherein the living hinge (86 Figure 29 – Trinh) has a first thickness and the first and second body panels (508, 514 Figure 32) have a second thickness greater than the first thickness (Trinh’s living hinge is necessarily of less thickness than the conjoined body panels, Col. 14 Lines 27-30 – Trinh).
With regards to claim 3, Forrest in view of Trinh teaches the cabinet lock of claim 1, wherein the adhesive layer includes a first adhesive pad coupled to the first body panel (508 Figure 32) and a second adhesive pad coupled to the second body panel (514 Figure 32) (Forrest teaches first and second adhesive pads for each of the first and second body panels, Col. 8 Lines 30-37).
With regards to claim 4, Forrest in view of Trinh teaches the cabinet lock of claim 1, wherein the first body panel (508 Figure 32) has a first length and the second body panel (514 Figure 32) has a second length greater than the first length (the second body panel has a second length greater than a first length of the first body panel, at least in the vertical dimension of Figure 2C).
With regards to claim 5, Forrest in view of Trinh teaches the cabinet lock of claim 4.
Forrest in view of Trinh is silent on whether the first length is less than or equal to 0.6 inches and the second length is greater than or equal to 1.3 inches.
However, In re Aller (220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235) held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to size Forrest’s first and second body panels (508, 514 Figure 32) such that the first length is less than or equal to 0.6 inches and the second length is greater than or equal to 1.3 inches, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to select such sizes to ensure that the cabinet-door catch is compatible with commonly found cabinet sizes.
With regards to claim 6, Forrest in view of Trinh teaches the cabinet lock of claim 1, wherein the first body panel (508 Figure 32) has a first width and the second body panel (514 Figure 32) has a second width less than the first width (the second body panel has a second width less than a first width of the first body panel, at least in the into/out-of-the-page dimension of Figure 2C).
With regards to claim 7, Forrest discloses a cabinet lock (Figure 1A) comprising:
a latch (200 Figure 1A) configured to be fixed to a cabinet panel for movement with the cabinet panel between a closed position and an opened position, and
a catch (500 Figure 2A) configured to be fixed to a cabinet frame in a fixed position and configured to engage selectively with the latch to block movement of the latch away from the catch (Col. 3 Lines 51-67), the catch including a catch body (502 Figure 28) and a catch lip (404 Figure 31) coupled to the catch body,
wherein the catch body includes a first body panel (508 Figure 32), a second body panel (514 Figure 32) spaced apart from the first body panel in a second configuration in which the first and second body panels of the catch body are arranged to lie at an angle to one another, and
wherein the first body panel is configured to attach to a first portion of the cabinet frame and the second body panel is configured to attach to a second portion of the cabinet frame, and the first and second body portions remain attached to the first and second portions when the cabinet panel is in the closed position and the opened position (Forrest teaches that each of the first and second body panels can be fixed to first and second interior surface of the cabinet frame by first and second adhesive pads, Col. 8 Lines 30-37).
Forrest further discloses a second catch (400 Figure 1A) comprising the same elements as the first catch but configured to be attached in a first configuration in which the first and second body panels (408, 412 Figure 28) of the catch body are substantially parallel with one another (Col. 7 Line 63 – Col. 8 Line 43).
Forrest does not disclose a catch having a hinge interconnecting the first body panel and the second body panel.
However, Trinh teaches a similar cabinet door catch (140 Figure 29) having first and second body panels (141, 143 Figure 29) and a hinge (86 Figure 29) interconnecting the first body panel and the second body panel of the catch body, and wherein the first body panel and the second body panel are pivotable relative to one another about a hinge axis (pivotal axis of 86, Figure 29) provided by the hinge from a first configuration (Figure 30) in which the first and second body panels of the catch body are substantially parallel with one another, to a second configuration (Figure 32) in which the first and second body panels of the catch body are arranged to lie at an angle to one another. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Trinh’s hinge for interconnecting Forrest’s first body panel and second body panel of the catch body, and wherein the first body panel and the second body panel are pivotable relative to one another about a hinge axis provided by the hinge from a first configuration in which the first and second body panels of the catch body are substantially parallel with one another, to a second configuration in which the first and second body panels of the catch body are arranged to lie at an angle to one another, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to create such a catch so that the cabinet lock can be used with an increased variety of cabinet configurations.
With regards to claim 8, Forrest in view of Trinh teaches the cabinet lock of claim 7, wherein the hinge (86 Figure 29 – Trinh) has a first thickness and the first and second body panels (508, 514 Figure 32) have a second thickness greater than the first thickness (Trinh’s living hinge is necessarily of less thickness than the conjoined body panels, Col. 14 Lines 27-30 – Trinh).
With regards to claim 9, Forrest in view of Trinh teaches the cabinet lock of claim 7, further comprising an adhesive layer having a first adhesive pad coupled to the first body panel (508 Figure 32) and a second adhesive pad coupled to the second body panel (514 Figure 32) (Forrest teaches first and second adhesive pads for each of the first and second body panels, Col. 8 Lines 30-37).
With regards to claim 10, Forrest in view of Trinh teaches the cabinet lock of claim 7, wherein the first body panel (508 Figure 32) has a first length and the second body panel (514 Figure 32) has a second length greater than the first length (the second body panel has a second length greater than a first length of the first body panel, at least in the vertical dimension of Figure 2C).
With regards to claim 11, Forrest in view of Trinh teaches the cabinet lock of claim 10.
Forrest in view of Trinh is silent on whether the first length is less than or equal to 0.6 inches and the second length is greater than or equal to 1.3 inches.
However, In re Aller (220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235) held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to size Forrest’s first and second body panels (508, 514 Figure 32) such that the first length is less than or equal to 0.6 inches and the second length is greater than or equal to 1.3 inches, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to select such sizes to ensure that the cabinet-door catch is compatible with commonly found cabinet sizes.
With regards to claim 12, Forrest in view of Trinh teaches the cabinet lock of claim 7, wherein the first body panel (508 Figure 32) has a first width and the second body panel (514 Figure 32) has a second width less than the first width (the second body panel has a second width less than a first width of the first body panel, at least in the into/out-of-the-page dimension of Figure 2C).
With regards to claim 13, Forrest discloses a cabinet lock (Figure 1A) comprising:
a cabinet-door latch (200 Figure 1A) configured to be fixed to a cabinet panel (20 Figure 1A) for movement with the cabinet panel between a closed position blocking access to a cabinet opening and an opened position exposing the cabinet opening (Col. 3 Lines 51-67), and
a cabinet-door catch (500 Figure 2A) configured to engage selectively with the cabinet-door latch to block the cabinet panel from moving from the closed position to the opened position, wherein the cabinet-door catch includes means for attaching (502 Figure 28, Col. 8 Lines 30-37) (interpreted as a means plus function limitation under 35 USC § 112(f), see Claim Interpretation above) to a second cabinet frame (25 Figure 1A) in a second configuration to establish a second attachment interface along a first plane with a first portion of the second cabinet frame and a second plane with a second portion of the second cabinet frame, and
wherein the cabinet-door catch is fixed to an interior surface of the first cabinet frame or the second cabinet frame to lie entirely within an interior space of the first cabinet frame or the second cabinet frame, and the cabinet-door catch is configured to attach to an interior surface of the cabinet panel to lie entire within the interior space when the cabinet panel is in the closed position (Forrest teaches that each of the first and second body panels can be fixed to first and second interior surface of the cabinet frame by first and second adhesive pads, Col. 8 Lines 30-37).
Forrest further discloses an alternate cabinet-door catch (400 Figure 1A) comprising the same elements as the first catch but wherein the cabinet-door catch includes means for attaching (402 Figure 28, Col. 8 Lines 30-37) to a first cabinet frame (25 Figure 1A) in a first configuration to establish a first attachment interface along a common plane with a surface of the first cabinet frame.
Forrest does not disclose a single cabinet door catch for use in both the first and second configurations.
However, Trinh teaches a similar cabinet door catch (140 Figure 29) including means for attaching (141, 143 Figure 29) to a first cabinet frame in a first configuration (Figure 30) to establish a first attachment interface along a common plane with a surface of the first cabinet frame and to a second cabinet frame in a second configuration (Figure 32) to establish a second attachment interface along a first plane with a first portion of the second cabinet frame and a second plane with a second portion of the second cabinet frame.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Trinh’s hinge configuration and teachings to modify Forrest’s cabinet door catch such that it can be attached to the cabinet frame in a first configuration to establish a first attachment interface along a common plane with a surface of the first cabinet frame and to a second cabinet frame in a second configuration to establish a second attachment interface along a first plane with a first portion of the second cabinet frame and a second plane with a second portion of the second cabinet frame so that shear resistance to a pull-out force acting on the cabinet-door catch by the cabinet-door latch is maximized when the cabinet-door catch is attached to the first cabinet frame in the first configuration and to the second cabinet frame in the second configuration, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to create such a catch so that the cabinet lock can be used with an increased variety of cabinet configurations.
With regards to claim 14, Forrest in view of Trinh teaches the cabinet lock of claim 13, wherein the means includes a catch body (502 Figure 28), an adhesive layer coupled to the catch body and configured to secure the cabinet-door catch to the cabinet frame (Col. 8 Lines 30-37), and a hinge (86 Figure 29 – Trinh) separating the catch body and the adhesive layer into:
(i) a first body panel (508 Figure 32) and a first adhesive layer coupled to the first body panel, and (ii) a second body panel (514 Figure 32) and a second adhesive layer coupled to the second body panel (Forrest teaches first and second adhesive pads for each of the first and second body panels, Col. 8 Lines 30-37).
With regards to claim 15, Forrest in view of Trinh teaches the cabinet lock of claim 14, wherein the hinge (86 Figure 29 – Trinh) has a first thickness and the first and second body panels (508, 514 Figure 32) have a second thickness greater than the first thickness (Trinh’s living hinge is necessarily of less thickness than the conjoined body panels, Col. 14 Lines 27-30 – Trinh).
With regards to claim 16, Forrest in view of Trinh teaches the cabinet lock of claim 14, wherein the first body panel (508 Figure 32) has a first length and the second body panel (514 Figure 32) has a second length greater than the first length (the second body panel has a second length greater than a first length of the first body panel, at least in the vertical dimension of Figure 2C).
With regards to claim 17, Forrest in view of Trinh teaches the cabinet lock of claim 16.
Forrest in view of Trinh is silent on whether the first length is less than or equal to 0.6 inches and the second length is greater than or equal to 1.3 inches.
However, In re Aller (220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235) held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to size Forrest’s first and second body panels (508, 514 Figure 32) such that the first length is less than or equal to 0.6 inches and the second length is greater than or equal to 1.3 inches, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to select such sizes to ensure that the cabinet-door catch is compatible with commonly found cabinet sizes.
With regards to claim 18, Forrest in view of Trinh teaches the cabinet lock of claim 14, wherein the first body panel (508 Figure 32) has a first width and the second body panel (514 Figure 32) has a second width less than the first width (the second body panel has a second width less than a first width of the first body panel, at least in the into/out-of-the-page dimension of Figure 2C).
With regards to claim 19, Forrest in view of Trinh teaches the cabinet lock of claim 14, wherein the catch body (502 Figure 32) is formed without any through holes (Forrest teaches adhesive pads for attaching first and second body panels to the cabinet frame as an alternative to the through holes shown Figure 32, Col. 8 Lines 30-37).
With regards to claim 20, Forrest in view of Trinh teaches the cabinet lock of claim 14.
Forrest in view of Trinh is silent on whether the catch body (502 Figure 32) has a total length in the first configuration of at least 1.5 inches.
However, In re Aller (220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235) held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to size Forrest’s catch body such that the catch body has a total length in the first configuration of at least 1.5 inches, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to select such a size to ensure that the cabinet-door catch is compatible with commonly found cabinet sizes.
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 Noah Horowitz, whose telephone number is (571)272-5532. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11:00AM - 7:00 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, Kristina Fulton, can be reached at (571) 272-7376. 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.
/NOAH HOROWITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675