DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in India on May 18, 2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Indian application 202421039132 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 “predefined gap”, “an operative edge” and “lower operative portion” [Claims 6 & 15] 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "10" and "100" have both been used to designate a “grill panel” – note figures 2 & 3 for instance [it appears that “100” in figure 3 should be changed to “10”]. 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. 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.
Claims 1-19 are 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. Claims 1 & 11 fail to recite sufficient structural elements and the interconnection of elements to positively define the “interlock” limitation so that an integral structural apparatus is set forth which is able to function as claimed. In Claim 6, line 4, the phrase “the operative portion” does not have a proper antecedent basis. Consequently, the remaining claims are rejected since they are dependent, either directly or indirectly, upon an indefinite claim.
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 & 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moulton et al., [US 5,295,743]. Moulton teaches of a grill panel (25) configured to be mounted on an operative front portion of a cabinet {20}, wherein the grill panel comprises: a bottom grill panel (27) configured to be mounted on a lower portion of the cabinet (fig. 2); and a top grill panel (26) configured to interlock with the bottom grill panel and configured to be mounted over the bottom grill panel (fig. 2), wherein an operative portion of the top grill panel is configured to interlock with an operative portion of the bottom grill panel (such as when the lower edge of the top panel and the upper edge of the lower panel are joined together via the locking means (51) – note figures 2 & 7-8). As to Claim 6, the grill panel comprises an adapter plate (such as the bottom frontal plate – fig. 2) configured to be mounted to an inner operative bottom surface of the cabinet, wherein the adapter plate is configured to form a predefined gap {viewed as a space behind the adapter plate and bounded by a lower base portion of the cabinet} between an operative edge (rear edge) of the adapter plate and an operative portion {a lower base portion} of the cabinet, and wherein a lower operative portion (bottom portion of the plate) of the bottom grill panel is configured to be received within the predefined gap {fig. 2}. As to Claim 7, the grill panel comprises a center bracket (52) configured to be mounted to the operative front portion of the cabinet. As to Claim 8, the center bracket is configured to partition the cabinet into an upper half cabinet and a lower half cabinet {such as when both the top and bottom panels are in the fig. 2 state}, and wherein an upper operative portion of the bottom grill panel is configured to be received and fastened to the center bracket {note figs. 7-8}. As to Claim 9, the grill panel comprises at least two side plates (such as any of the (32, 33) along each (30) for example) and at least one base plate (such as any (39) along each (30) for example) or two side plates (any two upper (30’s)) and at least one base plate (a lower (30) below the two side plates along the upper half of the cabinet) configured to be mounted in an inner operative portion of an upper half of the cabinet, wherein the at least two side plates and the at least one base plate are configured as a protective barrier for components from external tampering {when combined, they form a barrier}. As to Claim 10, the bottom grill panel and the top grill panel are defined by a cage structure (fig. 2) and include a webbed portion (viewed as the multi-directional wall portions defining the (30’s) that make up the grill panels) comprising an interconnected pattern of elements (fig. 9).
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moulton et al., in view of Ufkes et al., [US 2019/0051074]. Moulton teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed grill panel, including the top grill panel being mounted over the bottom grill panel; but does not show the use of top brackets, each comprising a flange, along with a flanges along the top grill panel as prescribed by applicant. As to these features, Ufkes is cited as an evidence reference for the known use of mounting a bracket (126) upon an enclosure substrate (such as a grill panel), where the bracket includes a flange (134), wherein another bracket (128) can be mounted upon another enclosure substrate (such as an adjacent and different grill panel) and includes a flange (134) as well. 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 Moulton so as to include a bracket with a flange along with a mating flange on another portion of the grill panel for coupling purposes in view of Ufkes teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing an alternative locking / securing means by which the bottom and top grill panels can be coupled together in order to restrict unauthorized access into an interior of a cabinet in which the grill panel may be mounted upon. As modified, the flange of the top grill panel is configured to abut a corresponding flange of the top bracket when the top grill panel is mounted over the bottom grill panel (note fig. 3 of Ufkes for instance). Additionally, as to the plurality of brackets and flanges, 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 an additional bracket with a corresponding flange, 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. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.; furthermore, the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Regarding Claim 3, as modified, the corresponding flange of the top bracket comprises a hole (136) and the flange of the top grill panel comprises a cavity (similar hole), wherein the hole of the corresponding flange of the top bracket aligns with the cavity of the top grill panel when the flange of the top grill panel abuts the corresponding flange of the top bracket (such would be the case as depicted in the fig. 3 orientation of Ufkes). Regarding Claim 4, as modified, the corresponding flange of each top bracket and the flange of the top grill panel are configured to receive a puck lock {122} configured to enclose and lock the corresponding flange of the top bracket and the flange of the top grill panel together (as shown in fig. 2 of Ufkes). Regarding Claim 5, as modified, the puck lock (122) comprises a smart puck lock configured to be connected to a cloud server and remotely actuated (Ufkes discloses that the puck lock is connected to a control module that enables data and control signals to be received from a remote computing device via wireless communications).
Claims 11 & 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moulton et al., in view of Hanel [US 6,450,598] and Shriro et al., [US 2,402,682]. Moulton teaches of a cabinet (20) comprising: a grill panel (25) mounted on an operative front portion of the cabinet; a plurality of racks (viewed as the interior shelves shown in fig. 1), wherein the grill panel comprises: a bottom grill panel (27) configured to be mounted on a lower portion of the cabinet (shown – fig. 2); and a top grill panel (26) configured to interlock with the bottom grill panel (fig. 2) and configured to be mounted over the bottom grill panel, wherein an operative portion of the top grill panel is configured to interlock with an operative portion of the bottom grill panel (such as when the lower edge of the top panel and the upper edge of the lower panel are joined together via the locking means (51) – note figures 2 & 7-8). Moulton teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed cabinet as outlined above, but does not show 1) a door panel configured to enclose the grill panel or 2) show each rack equipped with a battery restraining bracket. As to the incorporation of a door panel, Hanel is cited as an evidence reference for the known use of both an outer door panel (21) and a grill panel (17) mounted on an operative front portion of a cabinet (11) in an analogous art. 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 Moulton so as to include an outer door panel in view of Hanel’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing an added deterrent layer in which unauthorized access into the cabinet is minimized since both the outer door panel and the inner grill panel would need to be accessed by an authorized user before contents within the cabinet can be reached. As to the incorporation of battery restraining brackets on each rack, Shriro is cited as an evidence reference for the known use of restraining brackets (37) securely restraining objects (37) to a shelf (15). 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 Moulton so as to include restraining brackets along the shelves in view of Shriro’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 object (such as a battery if so desired) can be securely fastened to a shelf / rack in order to retain the object in place without fear of unintentional movement such as if the object and/or cabinet is accidentally bumped. Regarding Claim 14, as modified, the interlocking of the operative portion of the top grill panel with the operative portion of the bottom grill panel forms an interlocking zone that restricts unauthorized opening or tampering with the top grill panel and the bottom grill panel (via the intervening locking means). Regarding Claim 15, as modified, the grill panel comprises an adapter plate (such as the bottom frontal plate – fig. 2) mounted to an inner operative bottom surface of the cabinet, wherein the adapter plate forms a predefined gap (viewed as a space behind the adapter plate and bounded by a lower base portion of the cabinet) between an operative edge (rear edge) of the adapter plate and an operative portion (a lower base portion) of the cabinet, and wherein a lower operative portion (bottom portion of the plate) of the bottom grill panel is received within the predefined gap (fig. 2). Regarding Claim 16, as modified, the grill panel comprises a center bracket (52) mounted to the operative front portion of the cabinet, wherein the center bracket partitions the cabinet into an upper half cabinet and a lower half cabinet (such as when both the top and bottom panels are in the fig. 2 state). Regarding Claim 17, as modified, wherein an upper operative portion of the bottom grill panel is received and fastened to the center bracket inside the cabinet by fasteners (note figs. 7-8). Regarding Claim 18, as modified, the grill panel comprises at least two side plates (such as any of the (32, 33) along each (30) for example) and at least one base plate (such as any (39) along each (30) for example) or two side plates (any two upper (30’s)) and at least one base plate (a lower (30) below the two side plates along the upper half of the cabinet) mounted in an inner operative portion of an upper half of the cabinet, wherein the at least two side plates and the at least one base plate provide a protective barrier (when combined, they form a barrier).
Claims 12-13 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moulton et al., Hanel, Shriro et al., and further in view of Ufkes et al. The combined prior art teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed cabinet with grill panel as outlined above, including the top grill panel being mounted over the bottom grill panel; but does not show the use of top brackets, each comprising a flange, along with a flanges along the top grill panel as prescribed by applicant. As to these features, Ufkes is cited as an evidence reference for the known use of mounting a bracket (126) upon an enclosure substrate (such as a grill panel), where the bracket includes a flange (134), wherein another bracket (128) can be mounted upon another enclosure substrate (such as an adjacent and different grill panel) and includes a flange (134) as well. 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 grill panel of Moulton so as to include a bracket with a flange along with a mating flange on another portion of the grill panel for coupling purposes in view of Ufkes teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing an alternative locking / securing means by which the bottom and top grill panels can be coupled together in order to restrict unauthorized access into an interior of a cabinet in which the grill panel may be mounted upon. As modified, the flange of the top grill panel is configured to abut a corresponding flange of the top bracket when the top grill panel is mounted over the bottom grill panel (note fig. 3 of Ufkes for instance). Additionally, as to the plurality of brackets and flanges, 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 an additional bracket with a corresponding flange, 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. Regarding Claim 13, as modified, the top brackets can be mounted in proximity to a side edge of the cabinet, wherein the top brackets are concealed when the top grill panel is mounted and the door panel is closed. Regarding Claim 19, as modified, the corresponding flange of the top bracket comprises a hole (136) and the flange of the top grill panel comprises a cavity (similar hole), wherein the hole of the corresponding flange of the top bracket aligns with the cavity of the top grill panel when the flange of the top grill panel abuts the corresponding flange of the top bracket (such would be the case as depicted in the fig. 3 orientation of Ufkes).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moulton et al., Ufkes et al., and Hanel. The combined prior art teaches applicant’s basic inventive method of mounting a grill panel on an operative portion of a cabinet as outlined above, including a bottom grill panel being provided for mounting onto a lower portion of the cabinet, and assembling the bottom grill panel onto the lower portion of the cabinet (previously disclosed via Moulton); fastening a top portion of the bottom grill panel to a center bracket of the cabinet (previously disclosed via Moulton); providing a pair of top brackets and mounting the pair of the top brackets onto an operative edge defined along a vertical column of the cabinet (as modified by Ufkes); providing a top grill panel and mounting the top grill panel (previously disclosed via Moulton); fastening a side portion of the top grill panel of the top grill panel onto operative sides of the top brackets using fasteners (as modified by Ufkes); locking, using a puck lock, flanges of the top grill panel to flanges of the top bracket (as modified by Ufkes); and closing a door panel (as modified by Hanel).
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 cabinets and/or grill panel 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
September 17, 2026
/James O Hansen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights