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 § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (20220061525) in view of Reimer (4621876).
PNG
media_image1.png
351
578
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a sliding cabinet organizer (106) for mounting within a cabinet frame (104), said organizer comprising: a front wall (208); a rear wall (210); an upper shelf (220) and a lower shelf (330), said upper and lower shelves attached to and extending longitudinally between said front and rear walls (Figs. 2a-2b); and an upper sliding support mechanism (258) including: a bracket (1110 - see Fig. 11) capable of being attached to said frame (par. 89); an arm (1102) connected to and extending outward from said bracket (note that, when the arm (1102) is fastened to the end of the opening (1016) labeled “A” in Fig. 11 Annotated, at least a portion of the arm would extend beyond the bracket - see Fig. 11); and a track (803) attached to the underside of said upper shelf of said organizer (Figs. 2b-3 & par. 79) to support and facilitate translational movement of the organizer (Figs. 1a-1b). Chen fail(s) to teach an arm whose end is movable along the track. However, Reimer teaches sliding means (33, 35, 37) whereby an end of an arm (34) is interconnected with and movable along a track (37). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute sliding means, as taught by Reimer, for the track of Chen, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to facilitate horizontal movement of the organizer, and because such an outcome would have been a predictable result of such a substitution of one known sliding means for another. It is noted that Chen’s track (803) is connected (via 1112 & 1114 - see par. 86) to an end (B) of the arm (1102). Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that, in the structure of Chen as modified, the sliding means (33, 35, 37 of Reimer) would also be connected to the end (B of Chen) of the arm (1102 of Chen). Hence, Chen as modified would teach an end (B of Chen and 33 & 35 of Reimer) of said arm (1102 of Chen and 33 & 35 of Reimer) being interconnected with and movable along a track (37 of Reimer).
Regarding claim 2, Chen teaches a bracket (1110) further comprising a generally L-shaped cross-section (Fig. 11) with a vertical leg (1150) and a horizontal leg (1152).
Regarding claim 3, Chen teaches an arm (1102 of Chen and 33 & 35 of Reimer) being connected to a horizontal leg (1152 of Chen) of said bracket (1110 of Chen) at a longitudinal end (C of Chen - see Fig. 11 of Chen) of said arm.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (20220061525) & Reimer (4621876) in view of Rock (4961648).
Regarding claims 4-5, Chen as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a horizontal leg (1152 of Chen) of a bracket (1110 of Chen) comprising an opening (1016 of Chen) that aligns with a respective opening (1108 of Chen) formed through an arm (1102 of Chen and 33 & 35 of Reimer); said aligned openings receiving a fastener (1111 of Chen - see Fig. 11 of Chen); but fail(s) to teach a pivotal connection. However, Rock teaches pivot means (12, 16) providing a pivotal connection between a bracket (6) and an arm (5’), said pivot means comprising an arcuate slot (16 - see col. 2, lines 31-32) in the arm (Fig. 1 & col. 3, lines 44-46), said arcuate slot spaced a radial distance from an opening (at 7) formed through the arm; said arcuate slot receiving a fastener (12) for providing adjustability to said pivotal connection between the arm and said horizontal leg of said bracket (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add pivot means, as taught by Rock, to the structure of Chen as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to obtain better guiding of the track (as suggested by col. 2, lines 24-26 of Rock). Hence, Chen as modified would teach a fastener (1111 of Chen) that provides a pivotal connection between a bracket (1110 of Chen) and an arm (1102 of Chen).
Regarding claim 6, Chen as modified teaches an arm (1102 of Chen and 33 & 35 of Reimer) further comprising a bushing (33 of Reimer) rotatably attached (implied by col. 2, lines 47-51 of Reimer, which characterize 33 of Reimer as a “roller”) to said arm at another end (B of Chen and 33 & 35 of Reimer) opposite a longitudinal end (C of Chen) attached to said horizontal leg (1152 of Chen).
Regarding claim 7, Chen as modified teaches a bushing (33 of Reimer) being disposable within and engaging a track (37 of Reimer) to interconnect said track with said arm (1102 of Chen and 33 & 35 of Reimer) and provide support to an upper shelf (220 of Chen) of an organizer (106 of Chen), and a track that facilitates translational movement of the organizer (as in col. 2, lines 13-15 of Reimer).
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (20160278521) in view of Reimer (4621876).
Regarding claim 8, Chen teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a sliding cabinet organizer (102) for mounting within a cabinet frame (108), said organizer comprising: a front wall (202); a rear wall (211); at least one shelf (203-206, 214) attached to and extending longitudinally between said front and rear walls (Fig. 2); and an upper sliding support mechanism (104) including: a bracket (311-312) attached to a rear surface of said rear wall (par. 57 & Fig. 1b); and a track (308) attachable to an underside of a top panel attached to said frame (Fig. 1b) to support and facilitate translational movement of the organizer (Figs. 1a-1b). Chen fail(s) to teach a bracket whose end is movable along the track. However, Reimer teaches sliding means (33, 35, 37) whereby an end of a bracket (34) is interconnected with and movable along a track (37). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute sliding means, as taught by Reimer, for the track of Chen, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to facilitate horizontal movement of the organizer, and because such an outcome would have been a predictable result of such a substitution of one known sliding means for another. Hence, Chen as modified would teach an end (311 of Chen and 33 & 35 of Reimer) of said bracket (311-312 of Chen and 33 & 35 of Reimer) being interconnected with and movable along (as in Fig. 2 of Reimer) said track (37 of Reimer).
Regarding claim 9, Chen as modified teaches a bracket (311-312 of Chen and 33 & 35 of Reimer) further comprising a generally L-shaped cross-section (Fig. 3 of Chen) with a vertical leg (312 of Chen) and a horizontal leg (311 of Chen).
Regarding claim 10, Chen as modified teaches a horizontal leg (311 of Chen) of said bracket (311-312 of Chen and 33 & 35 of Reimer) further comprising an opening (i.e., hole in 311 of Chen through which 35 of Reimer extends, as in Fig. 2 of Reimer); wherein a bushing (33 of Reimer) is rotatably attached (as in col. 2, lines 47-51 of Reimer) to said horizontal leg by a fastener (35 of Reimer) received through said opening (as in Fig. 2 of Reimer).
Regarding claim 11, Chen as modified teaches a bushing (33 of Reimer) being disposable within and engaging a track (37 of Reimer) to interconnect said track with said bracket (311-312 of Chen and 33 & 35 of Reimer) and provide support to said organizer (102 of Chen) (as in Fig. 2 of Reimer).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/5/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Said arguments have been addressed in the prior art rejection above.
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 MATTHEW ING whose telephone number is (571)272-6536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 a.m. - 5 p.m.. 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.
/MATTHEW W ING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights