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 .
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the cap portion of the head structure" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim will be examined as if it were dependent from claim 15 to give the proper antecedent. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5 & 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hillman (US patent 4,139,249).
Regarding claim 1, Hillman discloses a safety latch assembly for a sliding drawer, comprising: a latch configured to be mounted to a side panel (20) of the drawer (22) (Fig. 1), the latch including a mounting structure (24) defining an elongated channel (30), a rod (38) extending through the elongated channel (Fig. 2) and adapted to slide relative to the mounting structure, the rod including a head structure (50) arranged inside a chamber of the drawer and a bolt structure (42) coupled to the head structure and partially extending outwardly of the mounting structure (Fig. 2), and a biasing member (16) arranged surrounding the bolt structure and configured to bias the bolt structure to an outward position (Col. 3: 30-35); and a stopper (56) mounted to a wall of a cabinet housing, wherein in the outward position, the bolt structure is configured to contact the stopper to restrict a sliding of the drawer relative to the cabinet housing in an outward direction.
Regarding claim 3, Hillman discloses a safety latch assembly wherein the biasing member is a compression spring (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Hillman discloses a safety latch assembly wherein the bolt structure is configured to contact the stopper coupled to the cabinet housing to restrict the drawer from sliding fully open relative to the housing unless the latch is intentionally disengaged at an elevated position by the user (Col. 3: 37-54).
Regarding claim 5, Hillman discloses a safety latch assembly further comprising a bumper (32 is a bumper and acts as a damper) arranged between the head structure and the mounting structure to dampen any impact from the head structure hitting the mounting structure when the latch is released by a user.
Regarding claim 11, Hillman discloses a safety latch assembly wherein the latch is configured to be mounted to a side panel of the drawer using fasteners (26) selected from the group consisting of screws, bolts, and rivets.
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.
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) 2, 6 & 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hillman.
Regarding claim 2, Hillman discloses the safety latch assembly as claimed. Hillman does not disclose wherein the mounting structure is made from a non-corrosive metal selected from the group consisting of brass, bronze, stainless steel, and aluminum. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to modify Hillman wherein the mounting structure is made from a non-corrosive metal selected from the group consisting of brass, bronze, stainless steel, and aluminum, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 6, Hillman discloses the safety latch assembly as claimed. Hillman does not disclose wherein the compression spring is made from a material selected from the group consisting of steel, stainless steel, and a metal alloy. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to modify Hillman wherein the compression spring is made from a material selected from the group consisting of steel, stainless steel, and a metal alloy since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 9, Hillman discloses the safety latch assembly as claimed. Hillman does not disclose wherein the bumper is made from a material selected from the group consisting of rubber, silicone, and an elastomeric material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to modify Hillman wherein the bumper is made from a material selected from the group consisting of rubber, silicone, and an elastomeric material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 10, 12-14, 16, 17, 19 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hillman in view of Herskovitz (US patent application publication 2019/0249461).
Regarding claim 10, Hillman discloses the safety latch assembly as claimed. Hillman does not disclose wherein the stopper mounted to the wall of the cabinet housing includes a ramp portion and a butt end, the ramp portion facilitating the movement of the rod during the closing of the drawer. Herskovitz teaches a safety latch wherein a stopper (170) is mounted to the wall of the cabinet housing (Fig. 10) and includes a ramp portion and a butt end (Fig. 10), the ramp portion facilitating the movement of a rod during the closing of the drawer. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to modify Hillman to include a stopper with a ramp portion and butt end in view of Hierkovitz’s teaching, because this arrangement would have replaced one known configuration with another known configuration yielding a predictable result.
Regarding claim 12, Hillman discloses in combination, a latch and a stopper, the combination comprising: a latch assembly including a mounting structure (24) defining an elongated channel (30), a rod (38) extending through the elongated channel and adapted to slide relative to the mounting structure, the rod including a head structure (50) arranged inside a chamber of the drawer and a bolt structure (42) coupled to the head structure and partially extending outwardly of the mounting structure, and a biasing member (16) arranged surrounding the bolt structure and configured to bias the bolt structure to an outward position; and a stopper (16).
Hillman does not disclose the stopper having a ramp portion, a butt end, a flat upper surface, and a mounting surface, the ramp portion being angled at an incline from the mounting surface to the flat upper surface, and the butt end being positioned between the mounting surface and the flat upper surface at a location opposite of the ramp portion.
Herskovitz teaches a safety latch wherein a stopper (170) having a ramp portion, a butt end, a flat upper surface, and a mounting surface (Fig. 10), the ramp portion being angled at an incline from the mounting surface to the flat upper surface (Fig. 10), and the butt end being positioned between the mounting surface and the flat upper surface at a location opposite of the ramp portion (Fig. 10). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to modify Hillman to include a stopper having a ramp portion, a butt end, a flat upper surface, and a mounting surface, the ramp portion being angled at an incline from the mounting surface to the flat upper surface, and the butt end being positioned between the mounting surface and the flat upper surface at a location opposite of the ramp portion in view of Hierkovitz’s teaching, because this arrangement would have replaced one known configuration with another known configuration yielding a predictable result.
Regarding claim 13, Hillman, as modified, teaches the safety latch assembly as claimed. Hillman, as modified, does not teach wherein the mounting structure is made from a non-corrosive metal. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to modify Hillman, as previously modified, wherein the mounting structure is made from a non-corrosive metal, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 14, Hillman, as modified, teaches the combination wherein the biasing member is a compression spring (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 16, Hillman, as modified, teaches the combination further comprising a bumper (32) arranged between the head structure and the mounting structure to dampen any impact from the head structure hitting the mounting structure when the latch is released by a user.
Regarding claim 17, Hillman, as modified, teaches the combination wherein the latch assembly is configured to be mounted to a side panel of a drawer using fasteners (26).
Regarding claim 19, Hillman, as modified, teaches the safety latch assembly as claimed. Hillman, as modified, does not teach wherein the compression spring is made from a resilient material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to modify Hillman, as previously modified, wherein the compression spring is made from a resilient material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 20, Hillman, as modified, teaches the safety latch assembly as claimed. Hillman, as modified, does not teach wherein the bumper is made from an impact-absorbing material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to modify Hillman, as previously modified, wherein the bumper is made from an impact-absorbing material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 8 & 15 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.
Claim 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, 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 because it gives a general state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J ROHRHOFF whose telephone number is (571)270-7624. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00.
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, Dan 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.
/DANIEL J ROHRHOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637