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 Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, the recitation “to any one of claim” should be “to claim”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 10-2017-0121655 A (Park).
With respect to claim 1: Park discloses a cabinet pull-out basket, comprising an overall pull-out basket structure, wherein the overall pull-out basket structure comprises: a base (at least shelf 20b, may include the two side plates 26 attached thereto), wherein a sliding cavity (cavity accommodating a tray 10b) with an opening (front opening, towards the lower left in Fig. 1) on a side (front side) is arranged on the base, a fixing sucker (one or more of the suction plates 30) is arranged on a side of the base (Fig. 3 and 2nd page of the translation: suction plates 30 are on the bottom side of shelf 20b), and a receding opening (rail groove 23) is formed at a bottom of the sliding cavity in a penetrating manner (at least Figs. 2-3 and 7-8); a storage box (tray 10b), wherein the storage box is slidably connected to inside of the sliding cavity (as in at least Figs. 1 and 3-4), anti-drop hooks are arranged at a bottom of the storage box (Fig. 3: the shaft 11-1 and wing 11-12 form left and right hook means/structures that meet “anti-drop hooks” as claimed; each said “anti-drop hook” engages one of Park’s locking rails 23-2), and the anti-drop hooks abut against side edges (side edges of the locking rails 23-2) of the receding opening (2nd page of the translation describes wing 11-2 engaging rail 23-2, also see Fig. 7); and a plurality of rollers (two wheels 15), wherein the rollers are arranged at an opening end of the sliding cavity and/or a bottom of the storage box (wheels 15 are on the bottom of tray 10b).
With respect to claim 2: Park discloses wherein a clamping strip (at least one of the locking rails 23-2) is arranged at (at: in, on, or near) a bottom of the receding opening, the clamping strip abuts against the anti-drop hooks (2nd page of the translation describes wing 11-2 engaging rail 23-2, also see Fig. 7), a drop-in opening (opening 24) is formed on the clamping strip, and the drop-in opening is configured for the anti-drop hooks to extend into (Fig. 3 and 2nd page of the translation).
With respect to claim 7: Park discloses wherein a plurality of clamping slots are formed in the storage box (Figs. 4-5: “clamping slots” formed between adjacent pairs of vertical rails 13), and detachable partition plates (partitions 14) are arranged between the clamping slots.
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.
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) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 10-2017-0121655 A (Park) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 117958568 A (Tian).
With respect to claims 3-4: Park discloses wherein the rollers are located at a rear end of the storage box (Fig. 3: wheels 15 are at the rear end of the tray 10).
Park does not disclose “a rolling groove is formed on a bottom surface of the sliding cavity, and the rollers are arranged in the rolling groove” as recited in claim 3. Park does not disclose “wherein a retaining boss is arranged in the rolling groove, and the retaining boss is located at a rear end of the rolling groove” as recited in claim 4.
Tian discloses a working member 3 having a rear roller 1 guided in the slide way 22 of a sliding rail 2. The rear end of the slide way 22 has a groove 23 that receives the rear roller 1 in the closed position of the working member 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Park’s shelf 20b to have sliding rails 2 that guide the wheels 15, in order to more positively guide the movement of the tray 10b (by having the wheels 15 in the slide ways 22) and/or to provide a stop for the tray 10b in the closed position (by having the wheels 15 in the grooves 23).
In the modification, the sliding rails 2 and/or slide ways 22 thereof meet “a rolling groove” as claimed. The grooves 23 meet “a retaining boss” as claimed.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 10-2017-0121655 A (Park) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2005/0168115 A1 (Moon).
With respect to claim 5: Park does not disclose “wherein a rolling groove is formed at the opening end of the sliding cavity, and the rollers are rotatably connected to inside of the rolling groove” as claimed.
Moon Figs. 3 and 5 show a roller 16 inside a groove at the front end portion 616 of a sliding cavity, for supporting the bottom of a drawer 700. Moon Figs. 4 and 5 show the drawer 700 also has rollers 720 on the rear portion thereof, similarly to Park’s wheels 15.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Park’s shelf 20b to have Moon’s rollers 16 at the left and right sides of the front portion thereof, in order to support the movement of Park’s tray 10b similarly to Moon’s drawer 700.
In the modification, the recessed portion that accommodate the rollers 16 (see Moon Figs. 3 and 5) are the claimed “rolling groove”. The added rollers 16 meet “rotatably connected to inside of the rolling groove” as claimed.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 10-2017-0121655 A (Park) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KR 20-0459857 Y1 (Lee).
With respect to claim 6: Park discloses wherein a plurality of the overall pull-out basket structures are arranged (there are three sets of shelves 20, 20a, 20b and corresponding trays 10, 10a, 10b), the overall pull-out basket structures are vertically spaced apart from each other (at least Fig. 1).
Park does not disclose “support rods are arranged between the overall pull-out basket structures adjacent” as claimed. The side plates 26 are not interpreted as “rods”.
Lee shows it is known in the art to use connecting rods 51, 52 to vertically space adjacent basket pull-out structures (Lee Figs. 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Park’s shelves 20, 20a, 20b to be vertically separated by connecting rods 51, 52 as an obvious variant and/or functional equivalent to the side plates 26.
The connecting rods 51, 52 added to Park’s invention meet “support rods are arranged between the overall pull-out basket structures adjacent” as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW ROERSMA whose telephone number is (571)270-3185. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00.
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, 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.
/ANDREW ROERSMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637