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 communication is in response to application No. 19/088,867; Multipart Enclosure and Alert System; filed on 3/24/2025 and amended on 03/02/2026. Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 9-11, and 21-24 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 3, 5, 6, 8, and 12-20 have been cancelled by amendment. Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 9-11, and 21-24 have been rejected below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 9 should read; “portion of one of “
Claim 7 should read; “wherein pressure applied by the tab to the blind slider and blind latch assembly when mounted, accomplishes at least one of the following; reduces movement of the blind slider within the blind latch assembly, reduces noise caused by rattling, or improves rigidity.” For purposes of examination, claim 7 will be interpreted as though it is worded this way.
Claim 10, line 19 should read; “evenly dispersed along the perimeter”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent Claim 10 lines 9 and 13, refers to the blind slider and a plurality of blind sliders, but no blind slider has been established or described elsewhere in the independent claim. For the purpose of examination, the description of the blind slider from claim 1 will be used as though it has been incorporated into claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
238
258
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
411
562
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lisowski (US 5026016 A).
Regarding claim 1, Lisowski discloses;
A blind mounting system comprising:
a blind slider; (mounting button 16; figs. 8, 9)
a slotted body (retainer clip 10; fig. 2, col. 3, line 11-23) configured as a flat sleeve comprising;
a cavity bounded by the front surface of a back wall (back wall portion 22; fig. 2), a slot (slot 14) in a front wall (front wall 32) between a first side wall and a second side wall (side walls 38);
a tapered mouth in fluid contact with the slot (fig. 2);
at least one extended portion of one of the first and second side walls; (fig. 2 of Lisowski illustrates and extended potion above the slotted receiver.)
wherein when mounting the blind slider (mounting button 16) to the slotted body (retainer clip 10; fig. 2, col. 3, line 11-23) a side edge of the blind slider contacts the extended side wall providing haptic or tactile feedback. (figs. 1 and 2 illustrate a tapered upper opening where the side walls extend upwards above the top of the slot, creating a guide for the blind slider which provides a haptic or tactile indicator that the blind slider is located at the mouth of the slotted body.)
Regarding claim 2, Lisowski discloses;
further comprising a blind slider assembly having the blind slider attached to a neck at one end and the neck is attached at the other end to a connection base (flange 74); configured to reversibly mount to the blind slider in the slot (slot 14). (Figs. 8 and 9 illustrate the blind slider as having flanges on either end separated by a narrowed, neck region. Col. 4, lines 43-51)
Regarding claim 4; Lisowski discloses;
further comprising; a partial cut out in said flat back wall surrounding a tab (clip finger 28; figs. 4-6);
said tab is formed as part of slotted body and configured as a living spring with a bent connection neck (figs. 4-6; Lisowski) whereby a lower tab extends forward of the front surface of the back wall; and,
wherein the tab applies pressure to the blind slider and blind latch assembly when mounted in the slot. (Figs. 4-6 and paragraph 6 describe the tab as extending forward from the back surface. Paragraph 15 described to clip as bearing against the blind slider when assembled.)
Regarding claim 7, Lisowski discloses;
wherein pressure applied to the blind sliders and blind latch assembly when mounted at least one of reduces movement of the blind latch assembly within the blind slider within the slotted body, reduces noise caused by rattling and improves rigidity. (Paragraph 15 describes the clip finger as bearing against the mounting button to positively retain the device in the clip.)
Regarding claim 9, Lisowski discloses;
wherein the extended portion is angled to form a wider extended portion. (fig. 2 illustrates the extended portion as wider than the slotted receiver with the mouth angled to guide the blind pin into the slot mouth as well as an inclined ramp 26.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 10, 11, and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lisowski in view of Bell (US 2002/0178657 A) and further in view of Sharp (US 2005/0169724 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Lisowski discloses;
a plurality of slotted bodies each configured as a flat sleeve comprising; (A slotted body receiver is illustrated in fig. 1 and its use in an enclosure is described in paragraph 65.)
a cavity bounded by the front surface of a back wall (back wall portion 22; fig. 2), a slot (slot 14) in a front wall (front wall 32) between a first side wall and a second side wall (side walls 38);
a tapered mouth in fluid contact with the slot (fig. 2);
at least one extended portion of one of the first and second side walls; (fig. 2 of Lisowski illustrates and extended potion above the slotted receiver.)
wherein when mounting the blind slider to the slotted body a side edge of the blind slider contacts the extended side wall providing haptic or tactile feedback. (fig. 2 of Lisowski illustrates a tapered upper opening where the side walls extend upwards above the top of the slot, creating a guide for the blind slider which provides a haptic or tactile indicator that the blind slider is located at the mouth of the slotted body.)
PNG
media_image3.png
362
745
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a plurality of blind sliders (mounting button 16; figs. 8, 9) each connected to a connection base by way of a neck (Lisowski does not disclose a plurality of sliders but a duplication of parts is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Further, such a duplication of parts would be expected to yield predictable results in that the blind slider and latch assemblies would attach components together.)
Lisowski does not disclose a three-dimensional enclosure structure formed of a plurality of shells, however, Bell teaches;
An enclosure (enclosure 810; fig. 8, paragraph 64) comprising:
a three-dimensional structure formed of a plurality of shells (lid 812 and box 814 form a three dimensional structure; fig. 8);
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Lisowski to include a three-dimensional enclosure structure formed of a plurality of shells, as taught by Bell, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to latching features. As disclosed by Bell, it is well known for a latching feature to be used for a three-dimensional enclosure structure formed of a plurality of shells. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lisowski to include a three-dimensional enclosure structure formed of a plurality of shells, as taught by Bell, as such a modification would provide the ability to latch the enclosure panels together, forming a three dimensional structure.
Lisowski in view of Bell does not disclose a rack, however, Sharp teaches;
each slotted body connected a rack (support member 116; fig. 4a, Sharp);
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Lisowski in view of Bell to include a rack as taught by Sharp, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to three dimensional, tank enclosures. As disclosed by Sharp, it is well known for three dimensional enclosures to include a rack. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lisowski in view of Bell to include a rack as taught by Sharp, as such a modification would provide the ability to support the three dimensional structure.
Regarding claim 11, Lisowski discloses;
further comprising; a partial cut out in said flat back wall surrounding a tab (clip finger 28; figs. 4-6);
said tab is formed as part of slotted body and configured as a living spring with a bent connection neck (figs. 4-6; Lisowski) whereby a lower tab extends forward of the front surface of the back wall; and,
wherein the tab applies pressure to the blind slider and blind latch assembly when mounted in the slot. (Figs. 4-6 and paragraph 6 describe the tab as extending forward from the back surface. Paragraph 15 described to clip as bearing against the blind slider when assembled.)
Regarding claim 21, Lisowski discloses;
wherein the blind slider is configured with a top and bottom straight edges and two opposing curved side edges. (Lisowski discloses a blind slide on a circular shape, however, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to flatten the upper and lower surfaces or to shape the blind slider of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.)
Regarding claim 22, Lisowski discloses;
a perimeter edge around at least a portion of the blind slider; and , wherein the friction or hardness properties of the perimeter edge are different than the remainder of the blind slider. (Lisowski discloses a clip formed of plastic for use with a metal button (blind slider) as an alternative to prior art of the time, which formed the clip of metal. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to construct the blind slider of a material wherein the friction or hardness properties are whatever was desired, 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.)
Regarding claim 23, Lisowski discloses;
wherein the neck is formed in a plus shape with four arms conjoined. (Lisowski discloses a blind slider (pin) with a neck portion constructed of a circular form. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to construct the neck portion different portions of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.)
Regarding claim 24, Lisowski discloses;
wherein the arms directed up and directed down are larger than the arms directed to the sides; and wherein the larger arm support load better than having four equal sized arms. (Lisowski discloses a blind slider (pin) with a neck portion constructed of a circular form. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to construct the neck portion different portions of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended the claims to describe an extended side wall, extending above the slotted front face of the slotted body. However, Lisowski discloses a slotted body with extended sides, extending upwards forming a widening surface/guide, to both sides of the slot, which extends into the slot opening.
Applicant has amended the claims to include the limitation that the blind slider may be constructed with an encircling perimeter of a different friction of hardness. However, it would have been within the general skill of a worker in the art at the time of invention to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use.
Applicant has amended the claims to include the limitation of a living hinge and pressure tab as part of the slotted body. Reference Lisowski describes such an arrangement.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT LAWRENCE STRICKLER whose telephone number is (703)756-1961. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 9:30am to 5:30pm.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at 571-272-5109. 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.
/SCOTT LAWRENCE STRICKLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/VIVEK D KOPPIKAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3612
April 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights