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
1. 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 8 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. The limitations “the second section” and “the first second” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent 4,466,675 (Ferdinand).
With respect to claim 1, Ferdinand shows a drawer assembly (10, Fig.1) comprising: a plurality of panels (20, 30, 50) interconnected to each other via a first fastening mechanism (60, FIg.3) and a second fastening mechanism (29, 37, Fig.3); wherein the first fastening mechanism includes one or more pinholes (58, Fig.3) on at least one of the panels (50) and one or more pins (60) extended from at least one of the panels (30) to engage with, and being inserted in, the complementary pinholes (58, Col.4 lines 45-50); and wherein the second fastening mechanism includes one or more groove channels (29, Fig.2) on at least one of the panels (20) and one or more projecting tongue profiles (37) extended from at least one of the panels (30) to engage with, and being inserted in, the complementary groove channels (29, Col.3 line 50-Col.3 line 52).
With respect to claim 2, wherein the panels include: a front panel (20) having a pair of the groove channels (29, FIg.3) of the second fastening mechanism, a pair of side panels (30), each having the projecting tongue profile (37, Fig.3) of the second fastening mechanism on one edge to respectively engage with the groove channels (29), and one or more pins (60, Fig.3) of the first fastening mechanism on an opposing edge (36); and a rear panel (50) having one or more pinholes (58) of the first fastening mechanism to engage with the one or more pins (60) of the side panels (30).
With respect to claim 3, wherein each of the front panel (20), the side panels (30), and the rear panel (50) includes a further groove channel (39/57/23, Fig.3, FIg.4) engageable by a base panel (40, FIg.5).
With respect to claim 4, wherein the side panels (30) are attached with one or more drawer slide components (70, Fig.3, Fig.6).
With respect to claim 5, wherein at least one projecting tongue profile (37) of the second fastening mechanism has a dovetail tongue configuration (Fig.2, FIg.3).
With respect to claim 7, wherein at least one groove channel (29) of the second fastening mechanism includes a first section and a second section, whereby the first section (Fig.2, FIg.4), has a cross-sectional area wider than the second section (see the wide and narrow configuration of tongue’ “the mortise 29 is widest at the bottom margin 26 of the front panel 20 and is narrower at the top margin 25 of the front panel 20”, Col.3 lines 27-35), is configured to initially receive one portion of the projecting tongue profile (37) with a wider tolerance of insertion angles than the second section and to subsequently guide the projecting tongue profile to slide towards the second section at a designated orientation (Fig.3).
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 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 4,466,675 (Ferdinand) in further in view of WO 2020175978A1 (WO ‘978).
With respect to claim 6, Ferdinand doesn’t show a laminate on at least on projecting tongue. WO ‘978 teaches wherein at least one projecting tongue profile (2, Fig.2) of the second fastening mechanism is provided with a laminate (5, Fig.2, pg.6 lines 22-28) on at least one surface of the projecting tongue profile for providing improved structural integrity to the projecting tongue profile while nevertheless allowing relative sliding movement between the projecting tongue profile (2) and the groove channel (3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a laminate on the surface of the projecting tongue of Ferdinand, such as taught by WO ‘978, in order reduce deflection induced within the tongue and thus improve structural integrity of the tongue and the groove channel while allowing relative sliding movement between the tongue and the groove channel (pg.7 lines 1-3, WO ‘978).
With respect to claim 9, Ferdinand discloses wherein at least one groove channel (29, Fig.3) of the second fastening mechanism is located adjacent an edge of the panels but doesn’t disclose a laminate is disposed on the edge of the panel. WO ‘978 teaches laminate (5, Fig.2) being disposed on the edge of the projecting tongue (2) as well a laminate (5, FIg.3) on the edge adjacent to the groove channel (FIg.3, pg.7 lines 24-26, pg.10 lines 22-24). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include a laminate at the edge of the panels of Ferdinand, such as taught by WO ‘978, in order to enhance the structural integrity of the panel and reduce the occurrence of fractures at the edge.
6. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 4,466,675 (Ferdinand) in further in view of US 2014/0294498 A1 (Logan).
With respect to claim 8, Ferdinand shows wherein the second section has a dovetail groove configuration that are complimentary to the dovetail tongue configuration (at 29 and 37, FIg.2) of the projecting tongue profile but doesn’t show the first section has a square groove configuration. Logan shows the first section of the groove (48, FIg.8) has a square configuration. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make the first section a square groove configuration, such as taught by Logan, in order to make it easy to slide the tongue relative to the groove and easily remove if realignment is needed and such a modification would involve a mere change in shape of a component which is an obvious matter of design choice.
7. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 4,466,675 (Ferdinand) in further in view of US Patent 3,527,486 (Gamp).
With respect to claim 10, Ferdinand doesn’t show each pin of the first fastening mechanism have serrated circular protrusions. Gamp teaches a pin (3, Fig.1, Fig.2) having a first portion (4, Fig.2) and a second portion (5, FIg.2) both of which have serrated circular protrusions, the diameter of the serrated circular protrusions on the first portion (4, Fig.2) is larger than those on the second portion (5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the pin of Ferdinand such that it has serrated protrusions of different diameters such as taught by Gamp, in order to securely fasten the pins to the respective panel.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIWOT E TEFERA whose telephone number is (571)270-3320. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6PM.
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 5712703742. 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.
/HIWOT E TEFERA/Examiner, Art Unit 3637