DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claim 15 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 11, 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “watch winders” [claim 10] and the “internal lighting” [Claim 11] must be clearly shown / depicted within the drawings or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The phrase “each respective wall has a dado…” is deemed misdescriptive of the elected embodiment since the disclosure teaches that dados are located on respective side walls of the safe / frame (note figs. 2 & 4 for instance) and not on the storage compartment as set forth in the claims [Claim 12 establishes “respective side wall of the rear hidden storage compartment” which is picked up in Claim 14 as “each respective wall has a dado”. For examination purposes: the claim will be interpreted where the safe / frame include the dado.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 8, 12-13 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al., [US 2,861,857]. Lee teaches of a concealed furniture article (fig. 1) comprising: a front storage section (can be viewed as the front section of (3) or the front section of (17) for instance – either can be used for storage purposes such as for supporting or suspending articles); a rear hidden storage compartment (compartment as shown in figs. 2-3) located behind the front storage section; a safe (23); and a lift mechanism (fig. 6) that is fixedly connected to the safe (via 53, 61) and to a rear wall (via 65) of the concealed furniture article and is operable to move the safe between a raised position (fig. 1) and a lowered position (fig. 4) in which the safe is fully concealed within the rear hidden storage compartment (as shown). As to Claim 2, the concealed furniture article comprises a cabinet (11) that has a top wall (3) that includes an openable section (27) that moves between a closed position (fig. 4) in which the rear hidden storage compartment is concealed and closed off and an open position (fig. 1) in which the rear hidden storage compartment is accessible and the safe can move to the raised position. As to Claim 5, the lift mechanism has: 1) a motorized mount (fig. 6) to which a rear of the safe is attached (via 63); and 2) a guide mechanism (41, 47) for supporting a front mass of the safe, thereby taking stress off the lift mechanism at a rear of the safe. As to Claim 8, the lift mechanism includes a shelf (can be viewed as (37) for instance) on which the safe rests, the shelf including a lock mechanism (such as the fastening means used to attach the vertical sides to the bottom) for locking the safe to the shelf. As to Claim 12, the guide mechanism comprises a pair of guide slides (figs. 1-2), each guide slide having a first part (47) that is fixedly attached to one side of the safe and a second part (41) coupled to a respective side wall of the rear hidden storage compartment. As to Claim 13, the second part has an extendable length (i.e., its length extends vertically). Regarding Claim 18, again, Lee teaches of a concealed cabinet (11) comprising: a front storage section (can be viewed as the front section of (3) or the front section of (17) for instance – either can be used for storage purposes such as for supporting or suspending articles); a rear hidden storage compartment (compartment as shown in figs. 2-3) located behind the front storage section; a safe (23); and a lift mechanism (fig. 6) that is fixedly connected to the safe (via 53, 61) and to a rear wall (via 65) of the concealed furniture article and is operable to move the safe between a raised position (fig. 1) and a lowered position (fig. 4) in which the safe is fully concealed within the rear hidden storage compartment; wherein the lift mechanism has: 1) a motorized mount (fig. 6) to which a rear of the safe is attached (via 63); and 2) a guide mechanism (41, 47) for supporting a front mass of the safe, thereby taking stress off the lift mechanism at a rear of the safe, the guide mechanism includes a pair of slides (figs. 1-2), each slide including a first slide part (47) fixedly attached to one respective side of the safe and a second slide part (41) coupled to one side wall of the rear hidden storage compartment, the second slide part having an extendable length (i.e., its length extends vertically) to accommodate raising of the safe to the raised position (fig. 3).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al., in view of Gevaert [US 7,922,267]. Lee teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed concealed furniture article as outlined above, including the top wall including a fixed section (main section) adjacent the openable section at a rear of the top wall; but Lee does not show the openable section being pivotally attached to the rear wall as prescribed by applicant. However, Gevaert is cited as an evidence reference for the known technique of employing a top wall (14) that includes an openable section (26) that moves between a closed position (fig. 1) in which an article (36) within a hidden compartment (fig. 7) is concealed and closed off, and an open position in which the openable section is pivotably attached to a rear wall of the compartment and the article is accessible and moved to raised position (fig. 8). Accordingly, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Lee so as to include a pivoting openable section in view of Gevaert’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing an alternative closure means by which an article stored beneath would be concealed while in the openable section was in a closed position and the article would be accessible while the openable section was in a pivoted open position, where the concept of a distinct and separate pivoted section is favored over an integrated top combined with the article as dependent upon the needs and/or desires of an end user. As modified, the openable section would automatically open when the article moves to the raised position via a force to an underside of the openable section.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. Lee shows the safe as having a door (29) that opens toward the front storage section and wherein in the raised position, the safe is positioned above the top wall (fig. 1); but does not describe the safe material as being “metal”. However, the position is taken it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a varying array of known materials (such as metal) for the manufacture of the safe, with a reasonable expectation of success, depending upon the personal preferences of the designer and/or the designated environment for the finished product since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); and In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claims 6-7 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al., in view of Ritchie et al., [US 7,306,303]. Lee teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed concealed furniture article; but does not show a motorized mount / lift mechanism arrangement as prescribed by applicant. However, Ritchie is cited as an evidence reference for the known use of a motorized mount / lift mechanism (fig. 3), similar to applicant’s configuration, that is utilized to raise and lower a shelf (fig. 5) carrying article(s) within a compartment (102). The motorized mount includes a shelf (270) on which the safe would rest and a mounting bracket (256) above the shelf to which the safe can be fixedly attached (via intervening component). The motorized mount further including a vertical mounting plate (158) to which both the shelf and the mounting bracket are attached, the vertical mounting plate moving between the raised position and the lowered position, the vertical mounting plate being operatively coupled to a motor (216). Accordingly, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Lee, such as by modifying the motorized mount, in view of Ritchie’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing an alternative motorized mount by which the safe is raised and lowered relative to the storage compartment and is supported upon a stable platform as dependent upon the needs and/or preferences of an end user. Regarding Claim 17, as modified, the lift mechanism includes a fixed main bracket (154) that would be attached to the rear wall and a mounting plate (158) that movably travels in an up-and-down direction along the fixed main bracket, wherein a top edge of the mounting plate has a curved end (such as the curved end sections along the top edge – fig. 3) that would be capable of contacting and opening the openable section – depending upon the placement of the safe relative to the plate.
Claims 9 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al., in view of Ritchie et al., [US 7,306,303] and Yoshioka et al., [US 7,172,111]. Lee teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed concealed furniture article; but does not show a shelf on which the safe rests, with the shelf including a first modular connector that engages a second modular connector formed along a bottom surface of the safe to establish an electrical connection. As to the incorporation of a shelf to support the safe, Ritchie is cited as an evidence reference for the known use of a motorized mount / lift mechanism (fig. 3), similar to applicant’s configuration, that is utilized to raise and lower a shelf (fig. 5) carrying article(s) within a compartment (102). The motorized mount includes a shelf (270) on which the safe would rest. Accordingly, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Lee, such as by modifying the motorized mount, in view of Ritchie’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing an alternative motorized mount by which the safe is raised and lowered relative to the storage compartment and is supported upon a stable platform (i.e., the shelf) as dependent upon the needs and/or preferences of an end user. As to the shelf including a first connector that engages a second connector along a bottom of the safe, Yoshioka is cited as an evidence reference for the known coupling of an article (15), which is a cash container and deemed analogous to a safe, to a shelf (70) where the article includes a first modular connector (22, 23) while the shelf includes a second modular connector (37, 38) in order to establish an electrical connection. As such, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of the combined prior art so as to include mating modular connectors in view of Yoshioka’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing a means by which an electrical connection is established between the article (safe) and a supporting structure (shelf) of a storage compartment, whereby power would be afforded within the safe in order to operate accessories that can be associated with the safe. Regarding Claim 19, as modified, the position is taken that the similarly claimed features have adequately been mapped within the above rejections and therefore a redundant mapping of the features is superfluous.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al., in view of Ritchie et al., [US 7,306,303] and Yoshioka et al., [US 7,172,111] and further in view of BrownSafe (NPL – Chronos Watch Safe). The combined prior art teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed concealed furniture article; but does not show the safe including plural watch winders and internal lighting (neither does applicant’s represented embodiment). As to the incorporation of watch winders and lighting within the safe, BrownSafe is cited as an evidence reference for the known use of providing a safe with both plural watch winders and internal lighting for the purpose of maintaining and viewing watches stored within the safe. Accordingly, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of the combined prior art, such as by incorporating watch winders and lighting within the safe, in view of BrownSafe’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing a means to effectively and securely store watches and thereby ensure proper running of the watches while also providing illumination of those watches as dependent upon the needs of an end user.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al., in view of Park [US 5,797,666]. Lee teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed concealed furniture article; but does not show a dado formed in each respective side wall of the safe / frame as prescribed by applicant. However, Park is cited as an evidence reference for the known use of dados (22) along respective side walls (21) of a movable case (20) in order to accommodate guide rails (12). Accordingly, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Lee, by modifying the side walls of the safe / frame to include dado’s, in view of Park’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing a recessed groove along each side wall in order to receive components of a guide / slide assembly thereby maximizing the lateral space between the movable safe and static compartment without undo gaps between formed therebetween.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al., in view of Kohli [US 2019/0178021]. Lee teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed concealed furniture article; but does not show the lift mechanism as comprising a pneumatic lift mechanism. However, Kohli is cited as an evidence reference for the known use of a concealed furniture article using a pneumatic lift mechanism [0026] to raise and lower a safe (20) relative to a storage compartment (fig. 10) in an analogous art. Accordingly, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Lee, by modifying the type of lift mechanism being employed, in view of Kohli’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing an alternative lifting means as dependent upon the needs, preferences or availability of mechanisms to the end user.
Claims 1, 5-8, 12-13, 16 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohli [US 2019/0178021] in view of Ritchie et al., [US 7,306,303]. Kohli teaches of a concealed furniture article (fig. 10) comprising: a front storage section (can be viewed as the front section of (3) or the front section of (100) for instance – either can be used for storage purposes such as for supporting or suspending articles); a rear hidden storage compartment (compartment as shown in fig. 10) located behind the front storage section; a safe (20); and a lift mechanism (12) that is fixedly connected to the safe (via 53, 61) and is operable to move the safe between a raised position (such as fig. 5 for instance) and a lowered position (fig. 10) in which the safe is fully concealed within the rear hidden storage compartment (as shown). Kohli teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed concealed furniture article as mapped, but does not show the lift mechanism connected to a rear wall of the furniture article. However, Ritchie is cited as an evidence reference for the known use of a motorized mount / lift mechanism (fig. 3), similar to applicant’s configuration, that is utilized to raise and lower a shelf (fig. 5) carrying article(s) within a compartment (102) and is connected to a rear wall of a compartment. Accordingly, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Kohli, such as by replacing the lift mechanism, in view of Ritchie’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing an alternative lift mechanism that utilizes a smaller contained mechanism, as opposed to the larger scissor lift mechanism used by Kohli, thereby providing the same functionality of lowing and raising the safe without the space needed to accommodate a lift with numerous moving parts. Regarding Claim 5, as modified, the lift mechanism would include a motorized mount (fig. 3 of Ritchie) to which a rear of the safe is attached (via 158); and 2) a guide mechanism ((186, 188, 196, 198) of Ritchie) for supporting a front mass of the safe, thereby taking stress off the lift mechanism at a rear of the safe. Regarding Claims 6-7, as modified, Kohli teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed concealed furniture article; but does not show a motorized mount / lift mechanism arrangement as prescribed by applicant. However, Ritchie is cited as an evidence reference for the known use of a motorized mount / lift mechanism (fig. 3), similar to applicant’s configuration, that is utilized to raise and lower a shelf (fig. 5) carrying article(s) within a compartment (102). The motorized mount includes a shelf (270) on which the safe would rest and a mounting bracket (256) above the shelf to which the safe can be fixedly attached (via intervening component). The motorized mount further including a vertical mounting plate (158) to which both the shelf and the mounting bracket are attached, the vertical mounting plate moving between the raised position and the lowered position, the vertical mounting plate being operatively coupled to a motor (216). Accordingly, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Kohli, such as by modifying the motorized mount, in view of Ritchie’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing an alternative motorized mount by which the safe is raised and lowered relative to the storage compartment and is supported upon a stable platform as dependent upon the needs and/or preferences of an end user. Regarding Claim 8, as modified, the lift mechanism includes a shelf (either (16) of Kohli or (270) of Ritchie) on which the safe rests, the shelf including a lock mechanism (viewed as the bolts or welds of Kohli used to secure the safe to the platform / shelf) for locking the safe to the shelf. Regarding Claim 12, as modified, the guide mechanism comprises a pair of guide slides (186, 188, 196, 198), each guide slide having a first part (196, 198) that is fixedly attached to one side of the safe (via intervening components) and a second part (186, 188) coupled to a respective side wall of the rear hidden storage compartment (via intervening components). As to Claim 13, the second part has an extendable length (i.e., its length extends vertically). Regarding Claim 16, as modified, the lift mechanism can be a pneumatic lift mechanism [0026]. Regarding Claim 18, as modified, the position is taken that the similarly claimed features have adequately been mapped within the above rejections and therefore a redundant mapping of the features is superfluous.
Claims 2, 4 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohli and Ritchie et al., and further in view of Lee et al., [US 7,922,267]. The combined prior art teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed furniture article including a cabinet (dresser cabinet) having a top wall (102); but does not show an openable section within the top wall. As to this aspect, Lee is cited as an evidence reference for the known use of an openable section (opening that accommodates (27)) within a top wall (3) of an analogous art. Accordingly, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Kohli so as to cut an opening within the top thereof in view of Lee’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by allowing a means by which the safe can be raised and lowered without having the entirety of the furniture top moving thereby minimizing the space needed in order to operate the device (i.e., the space along either side of the safe could be utilized without worrying above the top interfering with the side spaces). Regarding Claim 4, as modified, Kohli shows the safe as being a metal safe, as is conventional in the art, and having a door (24) that opens toward the front storage section and wherein in the raised position, the safe is positioned above the top wall (note fig. 1 of Lee for example). Regarding Claim 17, as modified, the lift mechanism includes a fixed main bracket (154) that would be attached to the rear wall and a mounting plate (158) that movably travels in an up-and-down direction along the fixed main bracket, wherein a top edge of the mounting plate has a curved end (such as the curved end sections along the top edge – fig. 3) that would be capable of contacting and opening the openable section – depending upon the placement of the safe relative to the plate.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohli, Ritchie et al., and Lee and further in view of Gevaert [US 7,922,267]. The combined prior art teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed concealed furniture article as outlined above, including the top wall including a fixed section (main section) adjacent the openable section at a rear of the top wall; but Kohli does not show the openable section being pivotally attached to the rear wall as prescribed by applicant. However, Gevaert is cited as an evidence reference for the known technique of employing a top wall (14) that includes an openable section (26) that moves between a closed position (fig. 1) in which an article (36) within a hidden compartment (fig. 7) is concealed and closed off, and an open position in which the openable section is pivotably attached to a rear wall of the compartment and the article is accessible and moved to raised position (fig. 8). Accordingly, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of the combined prior art so as to include a pivoting openable section in view of Gevaert’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing an alternative closure means by which an article stored beneath would be concealed while in the openable section was in a closed position and the article would be accessible while the openable section was in a pivoted open position, where the concept of a distinct and separate pivoted section is favored over an integrated top combined with the article as dependent upon the needs and/or desires of an end user. As modified, the openable section would automatically open when the article moves to the raised position via a force to an underside of the openable section.
Claims 9, 11 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohli in view of Ritchie et al., [US 7,306,303] and Yoshioka et al., [US 7,172,111]. Kohli teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed concealed furniture article; including a shelf (either (16) of Kohli or (270) of Ritchie) on which the safe rests; but does not show the shelf including a first modular connector that engages a second modular connector formed along a bottom surface of the safe to establish an electrical connection. As to the incorporation of a shelf to support the safe, Ritchie is cited as an evidence reference for the known use of a motorized mount / lift mechanism (fig. 3), similar to applicant’s configuration, that is utilized to raise and lower a shelf (fig. 5) carrying article(s) within a compartment (102). The motorized mount includes a shelf (270) on which the safe would rest. Accordingly, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Kohli, such as by modifying the motorized mount, in view of Ritchie’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing an alternative motorized mount by which the safe is raised and lowered relative to the storage compartment and is supported upon a stable platform (i.e., the shelf) as dependent upon the needs and/or preferences of an end user. As to the shelf including a first connector that engages a second connector along a bottom of the safe, Yoshioka is cited as an evidence reference for the known coupling of an article (15), which is a cash container and deemed analogous to a safe, to a shelf (70) where the article includes a first modular connector (22, 23) while the shelf includes a second modular connector (37, 38) in order to establish an electrical connection. As such, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of the combined prior art so as to include mating modular connectors in view of Yoshioka’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing a means by which an electrical connection is established between the article (safe) and a supporting structure (shelf) of a storage compartment, whereby power would be afforded within the safe in order to operate accessories that can be associated with the safe. Regarding Claim 11, as modified, the safe includes internal lighting (note fig. 5 of Kohli for instance) and could be powered by the electrical connection. Regarding Claim 19, as modified, the position is taken that the similarly claimed features have adequately been mapped within the above rejections and therefore a redundant mapping of the features is superfluous.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohli in view of Ritchie et al., [US 7,306,303] and Yoshioka et al., [US 7,172,111] and further in view of BrownSafe (NPL – Chronos Watch Safe). The combined prior art teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed concealed furniture article; but does not show the safe including plural watch winders (neither does applicant’s represented embodiment). As to the incorporation of watch winders within the safe, BrownSafe is cited as an evidence reference for the known use of providing a safe with plural watch winders for the purpose of maintaining watches stored within the safe. Accordingly, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of the combined prior art, such as by incorporating watch winders within the safe, in view of BrownSafe’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing a means to effectively and securely store watches and thereby ensure proper running of the watches as dependent upon the needs of an end user.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohli and Ritchie et al., and further in view of Park [US 5,797,666]. The combined prior art teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed concealed furniture article; but does not show a dado formed in each respective side wall of the safe / frame as prescribed by applicant. However, Park is cited as an evidence reference for the known use of dados (22) along respective side walls (21) of a movable case (20) in order to accommodate guide rails (12). Accordingly, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Kohli, by modifying the side walls of the safe / frame to include dado’s, in view of Park’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing a recessed groove along each side wall in order to receive components of a guide / slide assembly thereby maximizing the lateral space between the movable safe and static compartment without undo gaps between formed therebetween.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure – see the attached Form PTO-892 showing various concealed furniture articles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES O HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6866. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 am - 4:30 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, 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.
JOH
July 23, 2026
/James O Hansen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights