DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 20, 2026 has been entered.
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 1-7 & 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen [US 2005/0127802] in view of Burkholder [US 4,129,279]. Chen teaches of a cabinet (fig. 1) comprising a frame (10), a plurality of pairs of guide rails (41), and a plurality of drawers (40), wherein the plurality of pairs of guide rails are clamped to the frame (figs. 12-13); each of the plurality of drawers is slidably connected to one pair of guide rails of the plurality of pairs of guide rails (as is conventional in the art – slidably mounted on the rack [0037]); and the frame is provided with a plurality of pairs of mounting holes (111); each of the guide rails is provided with a pair of T-shaped inserts (as best identified by element (421) as depicted in figure 13); and one pair of mounting holes and one pair of T-shaped inserts are clamped in a one-to-one correspondence (note fig. 13), wherein each T-shaped insert of the pair of T-shaped inserts comprises a connecting element, a first clamping element, and a second clamping element (see Exhibit A), wherein a first side of the connecting element is connected to the first clamping element, and a second side of the connecting element opposing the first side is parallel to the first side and is connected to the second clamping element, wherein the
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
second side of the connecting element is directly connected to a side of the second clamping element at a right angle (shown). Chen teaches applicant’s basic inventive cabinet as outlined {mapped} above, but does not show the second side of the connecting element connected to a side of the second clamping element at an obtuse angle. As to this aspect, Burkholder is cited as an evidence reference for the known use of incorporating an obtuse angle along a side of a connecting element that is directly connected to a side of a clamping element (see Exhibit “B”) in an analogous art.
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, 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 device of Chen so as to fashion a side of the clamping element with an obtuse angle in view of Burkholder’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by allowing for easier coupling between the T-shaped inserts and the frame since the incorporation of the inclined face (27c) along the side of the connecting element that is directly connected to a side of the clamping element would facilitate the insertion of the clamping element / hook into the mounting hole / slot , and provide a camming action as the clamping element is inserted to ensure a tight engagement (col. 3). Regarding Claim 2, as modified, wherein a top end of the connecting element is connected to the guide rail (shown); and a length (vertical length) of the first clamping element is greater than a length (vertical length) of the second clamping element (clearly shown in fig. 13). Regarding Claim 3, as modified, a thickness (viewed as the left to right thickness as shown in fig. 13) of the second clamping element is greater than a thickness of the first clamping element (clearly shown); and a first side of the second clamping element facing the guide rail is provided with a first chamfer (slight rounding shown), and a second side of the second clamping element facing away from the guide rail is provided with a second chamfer (slight rounding shown). Regarding Claim 4, as modified, a distance between an end of the first chamfer adjacent to the guide rail and the guide rail is D1, a distance between an end of the second chamfer away from the guide rail and the guide rail is D2, and a distance between a top surface of the first clamping element and the guide rail is D3; and D3 is greater than D1 and less than D2 (when viewing fig. 7 of instant invention compared to fig. 13 of Chen, the position is taken that distances are similar when comparing the gaps along the connecting element / clamping elements with respect to a body of the guide rail). Regarding Claim 5, as modified, each guide rail of the plurality of pairs of guide rails comprises a first guide plate (viewed as the bottom horizontal flange of the rail), a second guide plate (viewed as the web or vertical body of the rail), and a baffle plate (viewed as the right angled flange along both ends of the rail); the first guide plate and the second guide plate are connected vertically (in a manner similar to applicant’s representation – note fig. 3 for instance); both the first guide plate and the second guide plate are connected vertically to the baffle plate (shown); the pair of T-shaped inserts is provided on the second guide plate (one the vertical side portion); and the first guide plate and the second guide plate are slidably connected to a respective drawer; and the respective drawer abuts against the baffle plate. Regarding Claim 6, as modified, each guide rail further comprises a reinforcing rib (can be viewed as the lower vertical angled flanged section along the front of the rail as shown in fig. 12 for instance); and a top end of the reinforcing rib is connected to the first guide plate, and a side end of the reinforcing rib abuts against the frame. Regarding Claim 7, as modified, the frame comprises a top panel (top panel(s) as shown in figs. 1-2), a plurality of vertical posts (11), a plurality of cross beams (such as 22’s), and a plurality of foot pads (note figs. 12 & 14); the plurality of vertical posts are parallel to a vertical direction (shown); the plurality of cross beams are parallel to a horizontal direction (shown); and the plurality of vertical posts are connected vertically to the plurality of cross beams (shown); the plurality of foot pads are respectively provided at bottom ends of the plurality of vertical posts (see figures); the top panel is provided at top ends of the plurality of vertical posts (shown); and the plurality of vertical posts are respectively provided with the plurality of pairs of mounting holes (shown). Regarding Claim 9, as modified, the frame further comprises a plurality of crossing ribs (17); and free ends of the plurality of crossing ribs are connected to the plurality of vertical posts (fig. 14).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered, but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection. As exhibited, the combination of references expressly depicts the second of parallel sides of the connecting element being directly connected to a side of the second clamping element at an obtuse angle. As such, the position is taken that a prima facie case of obviousness has been established since applicants claimed invention only unites old elements with no change in their respective functions. Common sense directs one to look with care at a patent application that claims as innovation the combination of known devices according to their established functions; accordingly, the examiner has identified reasons that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements in the same way as the claimed new invention does. Consequently, the rejections are deemed adequate to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
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 rail to vertical standard coupling assemblies.
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 9, 2026
/James O Hansen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights