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 .
This is the First Office action on the Merits from the examiner in charge of this application.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 1, “[T]he tray support portion as claimed in claim 16 including” should be “[T]he integrated tray mount as claimed in claim 16, wherein the tray support portion includes”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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) 1-3, and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ARB instructions are - Here is the easiest (and complete) way to install your ARB drawers! [Viewed on internet on 11 October 2024]; URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trMa_saJtBk, Published on 30 Sept 2020 (hereinafter ARB) in view of EP 0425447 to Ghezzi.
ARB discloses (Claim 1). An integrated drawer side panel for a vehicular drawer system including a drawer removably insertable into a cabinet, the integrated drawer side panel including: a member including: a side panel portion and one or more track elements, the one or more track elements including: a first track portion including a support surface for engaging at least one support wheel mounted to a side wall of the cabinet; and a second track portion including a guide surface for engaging at least one guide wheel mounted to said side wall; (Claim 2). The integrated drawer side panel of claim 1, wherein the first track portion and the second track portion are formed on a single track element; (Claim 3). The integrated drawer side panel of claim 2, wherein the guide surface and the support surface face away from each other; (Claim 13). A drawer assembly including: a first integrated drawer side panel according claim 1, provided on one side of the drawer; a second integrated drawer side panel according to claim 1 provided on the other side of the drawer; and a bottom panel extending from the first integrated drawer side panel to the second integrated drawer side panel; (Claim 14). A vehicular drawer system, including: a cabinet including a cabinet side wall having a length direction and a height direction, the cabinet side wall including: a side wall portion, a support wheel mounted to the side wall portion, and a guide wheel mounted to the side wall portion; and a drawer including an integrated drawer side panel according to claim 1; (Claim 16). An integrated tray mount for a sliding tray for a vehicular drawer system including a cabinet and a sliding tray, the integrated tray mount including: a member including: a tray support portion and one or more track elements, the one or more track elements including: a first track portion including a support surface for engaging at least one support wheel mounted to a side wall of the cabinet; a second track portion including a guide surface for engaging at least one guide wheel mounted to said side wall; (Claim 17). The integrated tray mount as claimed in claim 16, wherein the tray support portion includes a ledge and a connector between the ledge and the one or more track elements; (Claim 18). A vehicular drawer system including: a cabinet made up of two spaced cabinet side walls, the cabinet side walls having a length direction and a height direction and including: a side wall portion having a length and a height; a support wheel (see attached annotated picture) mounted to the side wall portion, the support wheel having a first radius and a first axis of rotation; and a guide wheel (see attached annotated picture) mounted to the side wall portion, the guide wheel having a second radius and a second axis of rotation, the support wheel and the guide wheel being spaced from one another in the height direction and in the length direction; wherein a distance in the length direction between the first and second axes is greater than the combined first and second radiuses; and a drawer assembly according to claim 13, each integrated drawer side panel of the drawer assembly including separate first and second track elements defining a corridor, wherein the support wheel and the guide wheel of the adjacent cabinet side wall are configured to run within the corridor of the adjacent drawer side panel;
PNG
media_image1.png
988
1466
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Claim 19). A kit for a vehicular drawer system or a drawer for a vehicular drawer system including: two integrated drawer side panels according to claim 1; (Claim 20). The kit of claim 19 including two integrated tray mounts according to claim 16.
The differences being that ARB fails to clearly disclose the limitations in (i) claim 1 of the member is an extruded member, wherein the side panel portion and the one or more track elements are integrally extruded; (ii) claim 15; (iii) claim 16 of the member is an extruded member, wherein the tray support portion and the one or more track elements are integrally extruded; (iv) the limitations in claim 18 of a distance in the height direction between the first and second axes is less than the combined first and second radiuses.
Regarding (i)-(iii), Ghezzi discloses a drawer system comprising an integrated drawer side panel 4, the integrated side panel 4 including: an extruded member including: a side panel portion 10, and one or more track elements 23, wherein the side panel portion 10 and the one or more track elements 23 are integrally extruded; wherein the side wall portion 10 is an extrusion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in view of Ghezzi, to modify ARB to include the limitations in (i) claim 1 of the member is an extruded member, wherein the side panel portion and the one or more track elements are integrally extruded; (ii) claim 15 of wherein the side wall portion is an extrusion.; (iii) claim 16 of the member is an extruded member, wherein the tray support portion and the one or more track elements are integrally extruded with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the overall versatility of the vehicular drawer system.
Regarding (iv), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ARB, as modified, to include the limitations in claim 18 of a distance in the height direction between the first and second axes is less than the combined first and second radiuses, since such appears to be a matter of engineering design choice by modifying the height of the track elements and/or the radiuses of the wheels.
Claim(s) 4-5, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ARB, as modified, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20050174022 to Kuttalek.
ARB, as modified, discloses all the elements as discussed above except for the limitations recited in the above-listed claims.
However, Kuttalek discloses a drawer assembly comprising (such as shown in Figs. 1 & 5): a panel portion 21 and a track element 41; the track element 41 including a first track portion 43 including a support surface for engaging at least one support wheel 48; and a second track portion including a guide surface for engaging at least one guide wheel 48; wherein a first web 49,50 extends between the first track portion 43 and the second track portion 43 to provide structural support, and wherein the first web 50 at least partially defines the track element as an at least partially hollow element, and wherein the first web at least partially defines the track element as an at least partially hollow element; wherein a first cavity is defined in the track element by the first web portion, the support surface, the guide surface and the side panel portion
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in view of Kuttalek, to modify ARB, as modified, to include the limitations in (i) Claim 4 of wherein a first web extends between the first track portion and the second track portion to provide structural support, and wherein the first web at least partially defines the track element as an at least partially hollow element; (ii) Claim 5 of wherein the first web runs between the support surface and the guide surface; and (iii) Claim 7 of wherein a first cavity is defined in the track element by the first web portion, the support surface, the guide surface and the side panel portion with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the overall versatility of the integrated drawer side panel.
Claim(s) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ARB, as modified, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of USP 8267488 to Chen.
ARB, as modified, discloses all the elements as discussed above except for the limitations recited in the above-listed claims.
However, Chen discloses an extruded member 40 (Fig. 7) comprising a track element 40, the track element including a first web extending between a first track portion having a support surface and a second track portion having a guide surface to provide a structural support, wherein a second web extends between the first track portion and the second track portion, wherein a second cavity is defined in the track element 40 by the first web portion, the support surface, the guide surface, and the second web portion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in view of Chen, to modify ARB, as modified, to include the limitations in (i) Claim 6 of wherein a second web extends between the first track portion and the second track portion to support the side of the track element which is most remote from the side panel portion; (ii) Claim 8 of wherein a second cavity is defined in the track element by the first web portion, the support surface, the guide surface, and the second web portion with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the overall versatility of the integrated drawer side panel.
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ARB, as modified, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ghezzi and USP 10076188 to Miles.
ARB, as modified, discloses all the elements as discussed above except for the limitations recited in the above-listed claims.
However, Ghezzi discloses a drawer side panel 4 comprising a track element 4 including a first track portion 23 having a support surface, a second track portion 23 having a guide surface. Ghezzi further discloses each of the guide surface and the support surface have a curved profile of a constant radius. Meanwhile, Miles discloses one or more track elements (Figs. 7a+) comprising: a first track element (defined as a bottom portion of element 113) having a first track portion including a support surface 154 (Fig. 17) for engaging at least one support wheel; and a second track element (defined as a top portion of element 113) having a second track portion including a guide surface 155 (Fig. 17) for engaging at least one guide wheel; wherein the first and second track elements are separate protrusions, wherein the guide surface 155 and the support surface 154 face each other; wherein the guide surface and/or the support surface include a groove configured to engage the respective at least one guide wheel or at least one support wheel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in view of Ghezzi and Miles, to modify ARB, as modified, to include the limitations in (i) Claim 9 of wherein the first track portion is formed on a first track element and the second track portion is formed on a second track element, wherein the first and second track elements are separate protrusions from a side of the side panel portion; (ii) Claim 10 of wherein the guide surface and the support surface face each other; (iii) Claim 11 of wherein the guide surface and/or the support surface include a groove configured to engage the respective at least one guide wheel or at least one support wheel; and (iv) Claim 12 of wherein the groove of the guide surface and/or the groove of the support surface has a curved profile of a constant radius with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the overall versatility of the integrated drawer side panel.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and all show structures similar to various elements of applicant’s disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANH VAN TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6868. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30.
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.
HVT
June 12, 2026
/HANH V TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights