DETAILED ACTION
Priority
1. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-3 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, from which claims 2 and 3 depend, it is unclear how the first and second adjustment members are in contact with opposite surfaces of the storage box. Examiner notes Figure 2 shows first and second adjustment members (41 and 42, respectively) in contact with opposite sides of first connector (12).
Regarding claim 4, from which claims 5-7 depend, it is not clear if the storage box introduced on page 2, line 7 is the same storage box that is introduced on page 1, line 17. For purposes of this examination, they are treated as being the same box. Should this be the case, Applicant should amend the second instance in order to find proper antecedent basis in the first instance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3,701,452 (Tonn) in view of US 5,667,261 (Weinerman).
Regarding claim 1, Tonn teaches an adjustment mechanism for a storage box, the adjustment mechanism comprising:
a rod (16) positioned on an edge (14) of the storage box (13) and configured for being moved on the storage box;
a first adjustment member (17); and
a second adjustment member (38), the first and the second adjustment members being arranged on the rod along a length direction of the rod (17 and 38 are disposed on the rod as seen in Figure 2) and movable on the rod (nut 17 is moveable; however, 38 is not taught to be moveable), wherein the first adjustment member and the second adjustment member are in contact with opposite surfaces of the storage box (Examiner notes this limitation is rejected above under 35 USC 112(b) for being indefinite; the arrangement shown in Tonn is identical to that of instant Figure 2 wherein the adjustment members are located on opposite sides of a connector 18, which is only disposed on a cover 11), and the rod is restricted (rod 16 is axially held in place relative to lugs 18).
Tonn fails to teach the second adjustment member is moveable on the rod.
Examiner notes the second adjustment member (38) is described as a “stop” which prevents the lid (11) from moving any further axially downwardly, by way of interference with lugs (18), in order to limit pressure on the gasket (col. 2, lines 46-50).
Weinerman teaches it is known to provide moveable adjustment members (e.g. 274 and 276) along a rod (252) in order to fix the relative location of a pivot pin (270; see col. 11, line 60 through col. 12, line 5). In effect, nut (274) when threaded onto the rod (256) will serve as a stop in a manner analogous to stop (38) in Tonn, in that it will prevent further axial movement of the pin (270), with the other nut (276), analogous to Tonn nut (17), locking the pin (270) in place.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the adjustment mechanism of Weinerman, providing the stop as a moveable adjustment member as taught by Tonn, motivated by the benefit of adjusting the relative location along the rod, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
Regarding claim 2, the rod comprises external threads (see phantom thread in 18 in Figure 2), the first adjustment member and the second adjustment member are connected to the rod by the external threads (17 is disclosed as a nut, which is known in the art to be internally threaded; stop 38 was modified above with regard to claim 1 in view of Weinerman to form it as a nut to move along a threaded rod).
Regarding claim 3, a rotation axis of the rod is perpendicular to the length direction of the rod (Examiner notes the unlabeled pivot pin at the base of 16; see annotated Figure 1 showing the bolt 16 in a down position, and annotated Figure 2 below pivoted up to a use position).
PNG
media_image1.png
330
419
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
605
433
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 4-7 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
7. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, Tonn in view of Weinerman fails to teach an adjustment mechanism and a limiting mechanism including the claimed structural details thereof. Examiner notes the claim is drawn to that which is shown in instant Figure 2 showing the adjustment device (200) comprising the adjustment mechanism (40; shown in closer detail in Figure 2) and limiting mechanism (50; shown in closer detail in Figure 5).
No motivation could be found to modify the prior art in order to arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES N SMALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4547. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am to 6:00 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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at (571) 270-5055. 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.
/JAMES N SMALLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3733