DETAILED ACTION
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 .
The following correspondence is a non-final Office Action for application # 19099115, entitled: TOE-KICK PLATE ATTACHMENT SYSTEM FOR APPLIANCE, filed on 01/28/2025. Claims 1-18, 22, and 25 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 14 is 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.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the threaded rod" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For Examination purposes, claim 14 will be understood to depend from claim 11, which introduces “a threaded rod.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9, 22, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Basesme (U.S. Pub. 20160081474) in view of Hognaland et al. (U.S. Pub. 20190142160).
Regarding claim 1, Basesme teaches a locking system for a toe-kick plate of an appliance 1, the locking system comprising: a toe-kick plate (as seen in Fig. 2a below) having a substantially planar body with a first, inward-facing (i.e. facing internal structure of appliance 1 as seen in Fig. 1), surface and a second, outward-facing, surface (i.e. facing away from the appliance 1 as seen in Fig. 1), the toe-kick plate further comprising a bracket leg 2; a cabinet body having a shaped channel 8 configured to receive at least a portion of the bracket leg 2. Basesme fails to teach where the bracket leg 2 extends from the second surface, or where the shaped channel comprises at least first and second channel walls; and a wedging member locatable between the walls of the shaped channel, such that the bracket leg 2 is frictionally locked within the shaped channel between at least one of the channel walls and the wedging member, where the wedging member is adjustably advanceable within the shaped channel such that a frictional locking force applied to the bracket leg can be varied. Hognaland teaches a locking system for an appliance (see discussion in para. [0007], lines 4-6), comprising a bracket leg (as seen in Fig. 1), where the bracket leg 2 is capable of extending from the second surface of the toe-kick plate taught by Basesme, having a shaped channel (as seen in Fig. 3 below), where the shaped channel comprises at least first and second channel walls (as seen in Fig. 2); and a wedging member 9 locatable between the walls of the shaped channel (see Figs. 1-2), such that the bracket leg is frictionally locked within the shaped channel between at least one of the channel walls and the wedging member 9, where the wedging member 9 is adjustably advanceable within the shaped channel such that a frictional locking force applied to the bracket leg can be varied, as seen in Fig.6.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the appliance of Basesme to have the bracket leg, with its channel and wedging member, as seen in Hognaland, in order to provide provide a self-adjusting leveling foot, as taught to be desirable by Hognaland (see discussion in para. [0006], lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 2, Hognaland teaches the locking system, where the wedging member 9 comprises a trailing wedge-shaped portion having a first angle at a first position along its length (as seen in Fig. 2 below).
Regarding claim 3, Hognaland teaches the locking system, where the shaped channel has a first engaging surface that is positioned to be engaged by the trailing wedge-shaped portion as the wedging member 9 is advanced within the shaped channel such that the first engaging surface urges the wedging member 9 against the first and/or second channel wall(s) (as seen in Fig. 3 below).
Regarding claim 4, Hognaland teaches the locking system, where the wedging member 9 further comprises a leading wedge-shaped portion having a second angle at a second position along its length (as shown in Fig. 2 below).
Regarding claim 5, Hognaland teaches the locking system, where the shaped channel has a second engaging surface that is positioned to be engaged by the leading wedge-shaped portion as the wedging member 9 is advanced within the shaped channel such that the second engaging surface urges the wedging member 9 against the first and/or second channel wall(s) (as shown in Fig. 3 below).
Regarding claim 6, Hognaland teaches the locking system, where the first and second angles are the same (as shown in Fig. 3 below).
Regarding claim 7, Hognaland teaches the locking system, where the first and second channel walls are angled towards each other along a first portion of the shaped channel, such that the first portion of the shaped channel has a non-uniform width along its length (see channel in Fig. 3 below).
Regarding claim 9, Hognaland teaches the locking system, where the shaped channel comprises a wedged portion having a third angle (at 8) configured to engage the wedging member 9.
Regarding claim 22, Hognaland teaches the locking system, where the bracket leg has a guiding edge (at 14) for maintaining alignment of the wedging member 9 relative to the bracket leg as it advances within the shaped channel (as seen in Fig. 2 below).
Regarding claim 25, Basesme teaches an appliance 1 comprising: a cabinet body, the cabinet body having a front face extending from an upper part of the appliance 1 towards a floor on which the appliance 1 is positioned (as seen in Fig. 1), a space provided between the floor and a lower edge of the front face, a shaped channel 8 provided on the cabinet body in the space, a toe-kick plate recessed behind a plane of the front face (as seen in Fig. 2a below) having a substantially planar body with a first, inward-facing (i.e. facing internal structure of appliance 1 as seen in Fig. 1), surface and a second, outward-facing, surface (i.e. facing away from the appliance 1 as seen in Fig. 1), the toe-kick plate further comprising a bracket leg 2; a cabinet body having a shaped channel 8 configured to receive at least a portion of the bracket leg 2. Basesme fails to teach where the bracket leg 2 extends from the second surface, or where the shaped channel comprises at least first and second channel walls.
Basesme fails to teach where the bracket leg 2 extends from the second surface, or where the shaped channel comprises at least first and second channel walls; and a wedging member locatable between the walls of the shaped channel, such that the bracket leg 2 is frictionally locked within the shaped channel between at least one of the channel walls and the wedging member, where the wedging member is adjustably advanceable within the shaped channel such that a frictional locking force applied to the bracket leg can be varied. Hognaland teaches a locking system for an appliance (see discussion in para. [0007], lines 4-6), comprising a bracket leg (as seen in Fig. 1), where the bracket leg 2 is capable of extending from the second surface of the toe-kick plate taught by Basesme, having a shaped channel (as seen in Fig. 3 below), where the shaped channel comprises at least first and second channel walls (as seen in Fig. 2); and a wedging member 9 locatable between the walls of the shaped channel (see Figs. 1-2), such that the bracket leg is frictionally locked within the shaped channel between at least one of the channel walls and the wedging member 9, where the wedging member 9 is adjustably advanceable within the shaped channel such that a frictional locking force applied to the bracket leg can be varied, where the bracket leg of the locking system is received in the shaped channel, as seen in Fig.6.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the appliance of Basesme to have the bracket leg, with its channel and wedging member, as seen in Hognaland, in order to provide provide a self-adjusting leveling foot, as taught to be desirable by Hognaland (see discussion in para. [0006], lines 1-3).
PNG
media_image1.png
366
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
450
602
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
696
659
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 10-13, and 15-18 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.
Claim 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to teach or disclose the locking system of claim 1, where in a second portion of the shaped channel, the first and second channel walls are angled away from each other, where the angle of the wedged portion is different to that of the wedging member, a threaded rod arranged to extend at least partially along the length of the shaped channel and through the wedging member, the threaded rod restrained from moving axially relative to the cabinet body such that rotating the threaded rod adjusts the position of the wedging member along the shaped channel; where the wedging member comprises first and second sub-wedging members, and where each of the first and second sub-wedging members are independently advanceable along the shaped channel; or, where the shaped channel has a third channel wall and has a generally right-angle triangular cross-section that corresponds to the cross-section of the wedging member, wherein the bracket leg comprises a generally L-shaped cross-section corresponding to the shape of the first and second channel walls. Modifying the locking system taught by Basesme and Hognaland above, to comprise the structural limitations above, would destroy the function of the taught locking device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In addition to the reference to Basesme and Hognaland et al. above, the Examiner submits the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892). U.S. Pats. 20080238274 to Seo et al., 20050218764 to Hong et al., and 20240310107 to Dong et al. teach appliances having toe-kick plates and feet for elevating the appliance. However, neither Seo et al., Hong et al., Dong et al., nor the cited prior art disclose or teach the locking system as claimed in the objected to claims above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL D MCDUFFIE whose telephone number is (571)272-3832. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8AM-4:30PM.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
/Michael McDuffie/Examiner, Art Unit 3632 27-Jun-26
/TERRELL L MCKINNON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights