DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14-19 & 22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 April 13, 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “central aperture” & the “secondary aperture” [Claim 9], the “first arm” & the “second arm” [Claim 11] and “the first end”, the “second end”, an “opening” & the “rear surface” [Claim 20] must be clearly shown / labeled or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-2, 6-13 & 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) second paragraph, 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, line 2, the phrase “the interlock assembly” does not have a proper antecedent basis; additionally, in line 9, the phrase “a first interlocking device mounted a first drawer” is unclear and confusing as presently worded. In Claim 13, lines 1-2, the phrase “the set of drawers rod are closed” is unclear and confusing as presently worded, thereby rendering the metes and bounds of patent protection being sought by applicant unascertainable. Consequently, the remaining claims are rejected since they are dependent, either directly or indirectly, upon an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 11-13 & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Olree [US 3,454,320]. Olree teaches of an interlocking assembly (fig. 1) for interlocking a set of drawers slidably received in a piece of furniture, the interlock assembly comprising a rod (16) extending vertically within the piece of furniture (10) between an outer wall (10a) and the set of drawers (12); a first rod actuator (can be viewed as the upper (18) – fig. 1) affixed to the rod; a second rod actuator (can be viewed as the middle (18) – fig. 1) affixed to the rod at a different portion of the rod than the first rod actuator; a first interlocking device (upper (20)) mounted on a first drawer (upper (12)) to interact with the first rod actuator; a second interlocking device (middle (20)) mounted on a second drawer (middle (12)) to interact with the second rod actuator; and wherein movement of one of the first rod actuator (such as when the first drawer moves outward) or the second rod actuator (such as when the second drawer moves outward) cause the rod to rotate about a central axis (note figures 6 to 7 progression) to thereby move the other of the first rod actuator or the second rod actuator to a locked position thereby preventing one of the drawers from being opened (see description in col. 5 for exact functionality). As to Claim 2, the assembly further comprising a position setting assembly (as shown in fig. 9 for instance) coupled to one of the rod actuators via (16). As to Claim 11, the first rod actuator comprises a first arm (22) that extends radially outward from a central aperture (25); and a second arm (24) that extends radially outward from the central aperture. As to Claim 12, the rod is installed adjacent to an interior front corner of the piece of furniture (as shown in fig. 1 – front right corner). As to Claim 13, when the set of drawers are closed (figs. 1 & 6), the rod, the first actuator, and the second actuator are all positioned forwardly from each rear wall on the set of drawers (shown). As to Claim 21, the position setting assembly enables a user to apply a force that causes rotational movement of the rod about the central axis of the rod (such as when a user pulls on one of the drawers for instance).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olree. Olree teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed assembly, including the rod having a circularly shaped body; but does not show the rod as having a generally C-shaped body. As to this generic shape / profile, 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 Olree so as to incorporate a rod having various profile geometries [note other types of rod profile geometries like the square shaped rod (22) as shown in the interlock assembly (fig. 1) of cited publication to Anderson for illustrative purposes], with a reasonable expectation of success, because the position is taken that it would have been an obvious matter of personal preference to vary the shape or profile of an element depending upon the needs and/or preferences of the user since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the configuration of a component without affecting the functional operation of the element (i.e., as generically claimed, the C-shaped body would not perform differently than the prior art device – both would perform the same function of rotating along a vertical axis while allowing each rod actuator to rotate accordingly).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 & 20 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.
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 drawer interlocking 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.
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.
JOH
May 14, 2026
/James O Hansen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights