DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 22, 2025 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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 “upper & lower installation space(s)” [Claim 1], “slope” [Claim 2], “installation hole” [Claim 3], “positioning hole” [Claim 10], and “battery pack” & “electrical element” [Claims 11 & 20] must be clearly shown / labeled 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 § 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 1 & 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Senge [US 958,018]. Senge teaches of an energy storage cabinet (cabinet), comprising: a cabinet body (fig. 1), wherein an upper installation space (above upper (3) – fig. 1) and a lower installation space (below upper (3)) are provided in the cabinet body, and a slide rail (14, 10, 7) is provided on each of two opposite inner walls of the cabinet body, the slide rail is provided between the upper installation space and the lower installation space (along upper (3)), and a groove (viewed as the groove / space accommodating (13) for instance) is provided in an upper side surface of each slide rail; a partition assembly (3, 4, 5) for separating the upper installation space from the lower installation space, and the partition assembly is provided with a roller (13), and the roller is allowed to be snapped into the groove (upon assembly) and roll along the slide rail to move the partition assembly out of the cabinet body. As to Claim 6, the partition assembly comprises a partition plate (bottom plate of (4) for instance) and a blocking strip (3), the partition plate is movably provided on the slide rail (note fig. 1), and the blocking strip is provided on a bottom side surface of the partition plate (fig.1). As to Claim 7, the blocking strip extends in a moving direction of the partition assembly (left to right as shown).
Claims 1, 3, 6 & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaplan et al., [US 6,932,443]. Kaplan teaches of an energy storage cabinet (10), comprising: a cabinet body (16), wherein an upper installation space and a lower installation space (both shown in the figures) are provided in the cabinet body, and a slide rail (such as (28, 27a, 29) – fig. 12) is provided on each of two opposite inner walls of the cabinet body, the slide rail is provided between the upper installation space and the lower installation space (note fig. 6 & 16 as examples), and a groove (viewed as the groove along the sliding arm portion and slide block that accepts the inherent roller bearings for instance) is provided in an upper side surface of each slide rail (note end view of fig. 6); a partition assembly (26) for separating the upper installation space from the lower installation space, and the partition assembly is provided with a roller (inherent roller bearings), and the roller is allowed to be snapped into the groove (upon assembly) and roll along the slide rail to move the partition assembly out of the cabinet body (note fig. 23 for example). As to Claim 3, the partition assembly is provided with an installation hole (such as the hole defined in the inherent bearing cage), the roller is mounted in the installation hole (as is conventional), and the roller protrudes from a bottom side surface of the partition assembly (lower side section of the slide rail assembly), which allows the roller to be snapped into the groove. As to Claim 6, the partition assembly comprises a partition plate (can be viewed as the rear plate of (26) for instance – fig. 19) and a blocking strip (can be viewed as the bottom plate of (26) for instance), the partition plate is movably provided on the slide rail (via (26)), and the blocking strip is provided on a bottom side surface of the partition plate (shown). As to Claim 13, the partition assembly comprises a partition plate (can be viewed as the rear plate of (26) for instance – fig. 19) and a blocking strip (can be viewed as the bottom plate of (26) for instance), the partition plate is movably provided on the slide rail (via (26)), and the blocking strip is provided on a bottom side surface of the partition plate (shown).
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.
Claims 2, 5, 12, 15 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplan et al., in view of Holmes et al., [US 3,784,274]. Kaplan teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed cabinet as outlined above; including an opening (shown in figs. 2-3 for example) defined on a front side of the cabinet body, and the partition assembly is movable out of the cabinet body through the opening (fig. 23); but Kaplan does not include a slope formed on one side of the groove proximate to the opening, which allows the roller to roll along the slope to move out of the groove. As to this feature, Holmes is cited as an evidence reference for the known use a of slide rail assembly (fig. 2) incorporating a roller (124) that can move in and out of a groove (54) along the slide rail, where the groove includes a slope (curved surface) to ease the roller past the groove. 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 Kaplan so as to include a sloped groove along the slide rail and the use of a bearing wheel as opposed to roller bearings in view of Holmes’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 the partition assembly can be releasably held in place until further movement is initiated by an end user. Regarding Claim 5, the prior mapping does not account for plural grooves and plural rollers as prescribed by applicant. Holmes is again cited as an evidence reference for the known use a of slide rail assembly (fig. 2) incorporating a roller (124) that can move in and out of a groove (54) along the slide rail, where the groove includes a slope (curved surface) to ease the roller past the groove. 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 Kaplan so as to include a sloped groove along the slide rail and the use of a bearing wheel as opposed to roller bearings in view of Holmes’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 the partition assembly can be releasably held in place until further movement is initiated by an end user. As modified, 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 incorporate additional rollers along with corresponding grooves, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, whereby multiple rollers seated within multiple grooves would afford greater stopping / holding effectiveness due to the multiple surfaces in contact. Regarding Claim 12, as modified, the partition assembly comprises a partition plate (can be viewed as the rear plate of (26) for instance – fig. 19) and a blocking strip (can be viewed as the bottom plate of (26) for instance), the partition plate is movably provided on the slide rail (via (26)), and the blocking strip is provided on a bottom side surface of the partition plate (shown). Regarding Claim 15, as modified, the partition assembly comprises a partition plate (can be viewed as the rear plate of (26) for instance – fig. 19) and a blocking strip (can be viewed as the bottom plate of (26) for instance), the partition plate is movably provided on the slide rail (via (26)), and the blocking strip is provided on a bottom side surface of the partition plate (shown). Regarding Claim 20, as modified, the combined prior art teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed cabinet as outlined above, including a battery pack (12’s) provided in one of the installation spaces, and an electrical element (25) provided in the other installation space; but Kaplan does not show the battery pack in the upper installation space or the electrical element in the lower installation space (Kaplan shows the opposite). However, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location of either of the batter pack / electrical element by rearranging their positions within the installation spaces, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that rearranging parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art and therefore will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senge. Senge teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed cabinet, but does not show the blocking strip as being made of an epoxy resin material (discloses metal or wood material). However, the position is taken that 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 for the manufacture of the blocking strip 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).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senge in view of Li et al., [US 2013/0163198]. Senge teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed cabinet as outlined above, but does not show a positioning pin & hole arrangement as prescribed by applicant. As to this aspect, Li is cited as an evidence reference for the known use of a cabinet body (100) being provided with a positioning pin (45), while a partition assembly (200) is provided with a positioning hole (2041), wherein the positioning pin is provided on a rear side wall of the cabinet body, and the positioning pin is inserted into the positioning hole when the partition assembly is inserted into the cabinet body. 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 Senge so as to include a positioning pin & hole arrangement as taught by Li, 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 the partition assembly would be fully seated and positionally connected within the cabinet when retracted into the cabinet.
Claims 10 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplan et al., in view of Li et al., [US 2013/0163198]. Kaplan teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed cabinet as outlined above, but does not show a positioning pin & hole arrangement as prescribed by applicant. As to this aspect, Li is cited as an evidence reference for the known use of a cabinet body (100) being provided with a positioning pin (45), while a partition assembly (200) is provided with a positioning hole (2041), wherein the positioning pin is provided on a rear side wall of the cabinet body, and the positioning pin is inserted into the positioning hole when the partition assembly is inserted into the cabinet body. 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 Kaplan so as to include a positioning pin & hole arrangement as taught by Li, 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 the partition assembly would be fully seated and positionally connected within the cabinet when retracted into the cabinet.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplan et al. Kaplan teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed cabinet as outlined above, including a battery pack (12’s) provided in one of the installation spaces, and an electrical element (25) provided in the other installation space; but does not show the battery pack in the upper installation space or the electrical element in the lower installation space (Kaplan shows the opposite). However, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location of either of the batter pack / electrical element by rearranging their positions within the installation spaces, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that rearranging parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art and therefore will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Claims 16 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplan et al., and Holmes et al., and further in view of Li. Regarding Claims 16 & 19, the combined prior art teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed cabinet as previously outlined; but does not show a positioning pin & hole arrangement as prescribed by applicant. As to this aspect, Li is cited as an evidence reference for the known use of a cabinet body (100) being provided with a positioning pin (45), while a partition assembly (200) is provided with a positioning hole (2041), wherein the positioning pin is provided on a rear side wall of the cabinet body, and the positioning pin is inserted into the positioning hole when the partition assembly is inserted into the cabinet body. 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 Kaplan so as to include a positioning pin & hole arrangement as taught by Li, 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 the partition assembly would be fully seated and positionally connected within the cabinet when retracted into the cabinet.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 8, 14 & 18 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.
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 storage cabinets and/or sliding partitioning assemblies.
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
August 7, 2026
/James O Hansen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights