DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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 .
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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments from the response filed on 14 April 2026 have been fully considered and will be addressed below in the order in which they appeared.
Applicant’s argument regarding rejection of record. Chen inview of Cooper in combination accounts for structure and function currently claimed. The individual references are evaluated for what they teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in combination. Applicant’s arguments directed to individual references do not overcome obviousness rejections made in combination. Applicant’s amendments do not distinguish over what is taught by the reference combination of the current rejection. Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 11, 13-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 11,692,374) in view of Cooper et al. (US 2021/0259417).
Regarding claim 1, Chen et al. discloses a tool storage system comprising:
a cabinet (78);
a drawer assembly installed in the cabinet, the drawer assembly including: a drawer (80) operably coupled to the cabinet to enable the drawer to slidably open and close; and
a sensor (70) configured to detect a user action to open the drawer (predetermined position X1; c6, l.21-22); wherein the sensor configured to detect the user action includes the sensor configured to detect a pulling force applied to the drawer
a lock assembly operably coupled to and between the cabinet and the drawer, the lock assembly including an electric lock (20) and a latch (54), the electric lock configured to engage the latch when the drawer is closed, and disengage the latch to enable the drawer to open (c.8, l.41-42): and processing circuitry (of electrical elements, motor, drive c.1, l.40-41; c.6, l. 65-67) operably couple to the sensor and the electric lock, the processing circuitry configured to receive a signal (c.6, l. 65-67) from the sensor responsive to detection of the user action (c.8, l. 62-64) to open the drawer, and control the electric lock to disengage the latch responsive to the signal.
Chen et al does not disclose: wherein the sensor configured to detect the user action includes the sensor configured to detect a pulling force applied to the drawer
Cooper et al. teaches wherein the sensor configured to detect the user action includes the sensor configured to detect a pulling force applied to the drawer for the purpose of providing a depressable button actuation ergonomically suited to daily function.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Chen et al with wherein the sensor configured to detect the user action includes the sensor configured to detect a pulling force applied to the drawer as taught by Cooper et al. for the expected benefit of a depressable button actuation ergonomically suited to daily function.
Regarding claim 2, Chen et al. as modified by Cooper et al. discloses the tool storage system of claim 1, wherein the electric lock (20) is affixed to the cabinet (78), and the latch is affixed to the drawer (Fig.12).
Regarding claim 3, Chen et al. as modified by Cooper et al. discloses the tool storage system of claim 1, wherein the electric lock (20) is affixed to the drawer and the latch is affixed to the cabinet (Fig.12).
Regarding claim 4, Chen et al. as modified by Cooper et al. discloses the tool storage system of claim 1, wherein the sensor includes an optical sensor pressure sensor, touch sensor (elastic sensing; c.7, l.6-11) or electric switch configured to detect the user action to open the drawer.
Regarding claim 11, Chen et al. as modified by Cooper et al. discloses the tool storage system of claim 1, wherein the electric lock includes a spring-loaded pin (58, 52) that is compressed inside the electric lock (Fig.10) when the electric lock is engaged with the latch, and configured to extend out (Fig.8) from the electric lock when the latch is disengaged to push the drawer at least partially open.
Regarding claim 13, Chen et al. as modified by Cooper et al. discloses a drawer assembly for a tool storage system that includes a cabinet (78), the drawer assembly comprising:
a drawer (80) operably coupled to the cabinet to enable the drawer to slidably open and close:
a sensor (70) configured to detect a user action to open the drawer when the drawer assembly is installed in the cabinet: and
an electric lock or a latch (54) of a lock assembly that includes the electric lock (20) and the lock assembly, the electric lock configured to engage the latch when the drawer assembly is installed in the cabinet and the drawer is closed, and disengage the latch to enable the drawer to open,
wherein the sensor and the electric lock are couplable with processing circuitry (of electrical elements, motor, drive c.1, l.40-41; c.6, l. 65-67) configured to receive a signal (c.6, l. 65-67) from the sensor responsive to detection of the user action to open the drawer, and control the electric lock to disengage the latch responsive to the signal.
Regarding claim 14, Chen et al. as modified by Cooper et al. discloses the drawer assembly of claim 13, wherein the drawer assembly includes the latch (54) that is affixed to the drawer (80, Fig.12).
Regarding claim 15, Chen et al. as modified by Cooper et al. discloses the drawer assembly of claim13,wherein the drawer assembly includes the electric lock (20) that is affixed to the drawer (Fig.12).
Regarding claim 16, Chen et al. as modified by Cooper et al. discloses the drawer assembly of claim13, where in the sensor includes an optical sensor, pressure sensor, touch sensor (elastic sensing; c.7, l.6-11) or electric switch configured to detect the user action to open the drawer.
Regarding claim 18, Chen et al. as modified by Cooper et al. discloses the drawer assembly of claim 13. wherein the sensor (70) configured to detect the user action includes the sensor configured to detect a pulling force applied to the drawer (by opening).
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.
Claim(s) 5, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 11,692,374) in view of Cooper et al. (US 2021/0259417)
Regarding claims 5 and 17, The tool storage system of claim 1, wherein the drawer assembly further includes a drawer handle that allows the drawer to be opened and closed.
Chen et al. does not discuss : a handle, although any structure is capable of serving as a handle.
Cooper et al. teaches a handle (216) for the purpose of opening and closing a drawer in a cabinet.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen et al. with a handle as taught by Cooper et al. for the expected benefit of opening and closing a drawer in a cabinet.
Claim 6, is (Canceled)
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 11,692,374) in view of Tsai (US 2006/0186776).
Regarding claim 12, Chen et al. discloses the tool storage system of claim 1, wherein the tool storage system and the processing circuitry is configured to control the electric lock.
Chen et al. does not disclose: further comprises a second drawer that is operably coupled to the cabinet, disengage the latch only when the second drawer is closed.
Tsai teaches further comprises a second drawer that is operably coupled to the cabinet, disengage the latch only when the second drawer is closed ([0002]) for the purpose of providing a cabinet with locking drawers allowing only one drawer to be pulled out.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen et al. with a second drawer that is operably coupled to the cabinet, disengage the latch only when the second drawer is closed as taught by Tsai for the expected benefit of providing a cabinet with locking drawers allowing only one drawer to be pulled out.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Chen et al. (US 11,692,374) as modified by Cooper et al. (US 2021/0259417) discloses the tool storage system with the exception of: a drawer handle movably affixed to the drawer, and the sensor includes an electric switch (218; Cooper et al.), and
wherein the drawer handle is movable into contact with the electric switch responsive to the pulling force applied to the drawer handle, and the electric switch is there by configured to detect the pulling force.
Claims 19-20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Chen et al. (US 11,692,374) as modified by Cooper et al. (US 2021/0259417) discloses the tool storage system with the exception of: a drawer handle movably affixed to the drawer, and the sensor includes an electric switch, and wherein the drawer handle is movable into contact with the electric switch responsive to the pulling force applied to the drawer handle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as it may affect the patentability of applicant’s claimed invention is listed on the attached PTO-892.
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 Thomas L. Neubauer whose telephone number is 571.272.4864. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM through 5:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina R. Fulton can be reached on 571.272.7376. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/T. L. N./
Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights