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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,661,767 (Hanley ‘767).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the overlap in scope between the patented claims and the claims in this application renders obvious the claims in this application.
With respect to claim 21: Hanley ‘767 makes obvious a drawer release (“drawer assembly” in at least claims 1, 19-20) comprising: a rail (“member”) including a flange (“first locking element” in claims 1, 19-20; “flange” in claim 17); a drawer comprising a frame and a handle coupled to the frame (claims 1, 19-20), the handle comprising a first portion and a second portion rotatably coupled to the first portion (claims 1-20), the second portion having a front wall extending outside of a chamber of the first portion; and a drawer release coupled to the drawer (claims 1, 19-20), the drawer release comprising a locking element (“second locking element”) having a bottom surface that engages the second portion (at least claims 1-3), wherein a pushing motion applied to the front wall moves the drawer release between a first orientation in which the locking element engages the flange and the drawer is prevented from sliding relative to the rail, and a second orientation, in which the locking element is spaced apart from the flange and the drawer is slidable relative to the rail (claims 1, 19-20).
With respect to claims 22-38: The claims are rejected at least via dependency.
With respect to claim 39: Hanley ‘767 makes obvious a drawer release (“drawer assembly” in at least claims 1, 19-20) comprising: a rail (“member”) including a flange (“first locking element” in claims 1, 19-20; “flange” in claim 17); a drawer comprising a frame and a handle coupled to the frame (claims 1, 19-20), the handle comprising a first portion and a second portion rotatably coupled to the first portion (claims 1-20), the second portion having a front wall extending outside of a chamber of the first portion; and a drawer release coupled to the drawer (claims 1, 19-20), the drawer release comprising a locking element (“second locking element”) having a bottom surface that engages the second portion (at least claims 1-3), wherein a pushing motion applied to the front wall moves the drawer release between a first orientation in which the locking element engages the flange and the drawer is prevented from sliding relative to the rail, and a second orientation, in which the locking element is spaced apart from the flange and the drawer is slidable relative to the rail (claims 1, 19-20), wherein the locking element directly engages the flange when the drawer release is in the first orientation (claims 1, 19-20), and wherein the second portion engages the drawer release when the drawer release is in both the first and second orientations (claims 1, 19-20).
With respect to claim 40: Hanley ‘767 makes obvious a drawer release (“drawer assembly” in at least claims 1, 19-20) comprising: a rail (“member”) including a flange (“first locking element” in claims 1, 19-20; “flange” in claim 17); a drawer comprising a frame and a handle coupled to the frame (claims 1, 19-20), the handle comprising a first portion and a second portion rotatably coupled to the first portion (claims 1-20), the second portion having a front wall extending outside of a chamber of the first portion; and a drawer release coupled to the drawer (claims 1, 19-20), the drawer release comprising a locking element (“second locking element”) having a bottom surface that engages the second portion (at least claims 1-3), wherein a pushing motion applied to the front wall moves the drawer release between a first orientation in which the locking element engages the flange and the drawer is prevented from sliding relative to the rail, and a second orientation, in which the locking element is spaced apart from the flange and the drawer is slidable relative to the rail (claims 1, 19-20), wherein the locking element includes a first lever and a second lever that is coupled to the first lever, and wherein the first lever is coupled to the second lever by a wire (claims 1-20).
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,291,896 (Hanley ‘896).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the overlap in scope between the patented claims and the claims in this application renders obvious the claims in this application.
With respect to claim 21: Hanley ‘896 makes obvious a drawer release (“drawer assembly” in at least claims 1, 16-17) comprising: a rail (“member”) including a flange (“first locking element” in claims 1, 16-17; “flange” in claim 8); a drawer comprising a frame and a handle coupled to the frame (claims 1, 16-17), the handle comprising a first portion and a second portion rotatably coupled to the first portion (claims 1-20), the second portion having a front wall extending outside of a chamber of the first portion; and a drawer release coupled to the drawer (claims 1, 16-17), the drawer release comprising a locking element (“second locking element”) having a bottom surface that engages the second portion (at least claims 1, 16-17), wherein a pushing motion applied to the front wall moves the drawer release between a first orientation in which the locking element engages the flange and the drawer is prevented from sliding relative to the rail, and a second orientation, in which the locking element is spaced apart from the flange and the drawer is slidable relative to the rail (claims 1, 16-17).
With respect to claims 22-38: The claims are rejected at least via dependency.
With respect to claim 39: Hanley ‘896 makes obvious a drawer release (“drawer assembly” in at least claims 1, 16-17) comprising: a rail (“member”) including a flange (“first locking element” in claims 1, 16-17; “flange” in claim 8); a drawer comprising a frame and a handle coupled to the frame (claims 1, 16-17), the handle comprising a first portion and a second portion rotatably coupled to the first portion (claims 1-20), the second portion having a front wall extending outside of a chamber of the first portion; and a drawer release coupled to the drawer (claims 1, 16-17), the drawer release comprising a locking element (“second locking element”) having a bottom surface that engages the second portion (at least claims 1, 16-17), wherein a pushing motion applied to the front wall moves the drawer release between a first orientation in which the locking element engages the flange and the drawer is prevented from sliding relative to the rail, and a second orientation, in which the locking element is spaced apart from the flange and the drawer is slidable relative to the rail (claims 1, 16-17), wherein the locking element directly engages the flange when the drawer release is in the first orientation (claims 1, 16-17), and wherein the second portion engages the drawer release when the drawer release is in both the first and second orientations (claims 1, 16-17).
With respect to claim 40: Hanley ‘896 makes obvious a drawer release (“drawer assembly” in at least claims 1, 16-17) comprising: a rail (“member”) including a flange (“first locking element” in claims 1, 16-17; “flange” in claim 8); a drawer comprising a frame and a handle coupled to the frame (claims 1, 16-17), the handle comprising a first portion and a second portion rotatably coupled to the first portion (claims 1-20), the second portion having a front wall extending outside of a chamber of the first portion; and a drawer release coupled to the drawer (claims 1, 16-17), the drawer release comprising a locking element (“second locking element”) having a bottom surface that engages the second portion (at least claims 1, 16-17), wherein a pushing motion applied to the front wall moves the drawer release between a first orientation in which the locking element engages the flange and the drawer is prevented from sliding relative to the rail, and a second orientation, in which the locking element is spaced apart from the flange and the drawer is slidable relative to the rail (claims 1, 16-17), wherein the locking element includes a first lever and a second lever that is coupled to the first lever, and wherein the first lever is coupled to the second lever by a wire.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,357,326 (Hanley ‘326).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the overlap in scope between the patented claims and the claims in this application renders obvious the claims in this application.
With respect to claim 21: Hanley ‘326 makes obvious a drawer release (“drawer assembly” in at least claims 1, 19-20) comprising: a rail (“member”) including a flange (“first locking element” in claims 1, 19-20; “flange” in claim 17); a drawer comprising a frame and a handle coupled to the frame (claims 1, 19-20), the handle comprising a first portion and a second portion rotatably coupled to the first portion (claims 1-20), the second portion having a front wall extending outside of a chamber of the first portion; and a drawer release coupled to the drawer (claims 1, 19-20), the drawer release comprising a locking element (“second locking element”) having a bottom surface that engages the second portion (at least claims 1-3), wherein a pushing motion applied to the front wall moves the drawer release between a first orientation in which the locking element engages the flange and the drawer is prevented from sliding relative to the rail, and a second orientation, in which the locking element is spaced apart from the flange and the drawer is slidable relative to the rail (claims 1, 19-20).
With respect to claims 22-38: The claims are rejected at least via dependency.
With respect to claim 39: Hanley ‘326 makes obvious a drawer release (“drawer assembly” in at least claims 1, 19-20) comprising: a rail (“member”) including a flange (“first locking element” in claims 1, 19-20; “flange” in claim 17); a drawer comprising a frame and a handle coupled to the frame (claims 1, 19-20), the handle comprising a first portion and a second portion rotatably coupled to the first portion (claims 1-20), the second portion having a front wall extending outside of a chamber of the first portion; and a drawer release coupled to the drawer (claims 1, 19-20), the drawer release comprising a locking element (“second locking element”) having a bottom surface that engages the second portion (at least claims 1-3), wherein a pushing motion applied to the front wall moves the drawer release between a first orientation in which the locking element engages the flange and the drawer is prevented from sliding relative to the rail, and a second orientation, in which the locking element is spaced apart from the flange and the drawer is slidable relative to the rail (claims 1, 19-20), wherein the locking element directly engages the flange when the drawer release is in the first orientation (claims 1, 19-20), and wherein the second engages the drawer release when the drawer release is in both the first and second orientations (claims 1, 19-20).
With respect to claim 40: Hanley ‘326 makes obvious a drawer release (“drawer assembly” in at least claims 1, 19-20) comprising: a rail (“member”) including a flange (“first locking element” in claims 1, 19-20; “flange” in claim 17); a drawer comprising a frame and a handle coupled to the frame (claims 1, 19-20), the handle comprising a first portion and a second portion rotatably coupled to the first portion (claims 1-20), the second portion having a front wall extending outside of a chamber of the first portion; and a drawer release coupled to the drawer (claims 1, 19-20), the drawer release comprising a locking element (“second locking element”) having a bottom surface that engages the second portion (at least claims 1-3), wherein a pushing motion applied to the front wall moves the drawer release between a first orientation in which the locking element engages the flange and the drawer is prevented from sliding relative to the rail, and a second orientation, in which the locking element is spaced apart from the flange and the drawer is slidable relative to the rail (claims 1, 19-20), wherein the locking element includes a first lever and a second lever that is coupled to the first lever, and wherein the first lever is coupled to the second lever by a wire.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,918,114 (Hanley ‘114).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the overlap in scope between the patented claims and the claims in this application renders obvious the claims in this application.
With respect to claim 21: Hanley ‘114 makes obvious a drawer release (“drawer assembly” in at least claims 1, 19-20) comprising: a rail (“member”) including a flange (“first locking element” in claims 1, 19-20; “flange” in claim 17); a drawer comprising a frame and a handle coupled to the frame (claims 1, 19-20), the handle comprising a first portion and a second portion rotatably coupled to the first portion (claims 1-20), the second portion having a front wall extending outside of a chamber of the first portion; and a drawer release coupled to the drawer (claims 1, 19-20), the drawer release comprising a locking element (“second locking element”) having a bottom surface that engages the second portion (at least claims 1-3), wherein a pushing motion applied to the front wall moves the drawer release between a first orientation in which the locking element engages the flange and the drawer is prevented from sliding relative to the rail, and a second orientation, in which the locking element is spaced apart from the flange and the drawer is slidable relative to the rail (claims 1, 19-20).
With respect to claims 22-38: The claims are rejected at least via dependency.
With respect to claim 39: Hanley ‘114 makes obvious a drawer release (“drawer assembly” in at least claims 1, 19-20) comprising: a rail (“member”) including a flange (“first locking element” in claims 1, 19-20; “flange” in claim 17); a drawer comprising a frame and a handle coupled to the frame (claims 1, 19-20), the handle comprising a first portion and a second portion rotatably coupled to the first portion (claims 1-20), the second portion having a front wall extending outside of a chamber of the first portion; and a drawer release coupled to the drawer (claims 1, 19-20), the drawer release comprising a locking element (“second locking element”) having a bottom surface that engages the second portion (at least claims 1-3), wherein a pushing motion applied to the front wall moves the drawer release between a first orientation in which the locking element engages the flange and the drawer is prevented from sliding relative to the rail, and a second orientation, in which the locking element is spaced apart from the flange and the drawer is slidable relative to the rail (claims 1, 19-20), wherein the locking element directly engages the flange when the drawer release is in the first orientation (claims 1, 19-20), and wherein the second portion engages the drawer release when the drawer release is in both the first and second orientations (claims 1, 19-20).
With respect to claim 40: Hanley ‘114 makes obvious a drawer release (“drawer assembly” in at least claims 1, 19-20) comprising: a rail (“member”) including a flange (“first locking element” in claims 1, 19-20; “flange” in claim 17); a drawer comprising a frame and a handle coupled to the frame (claims 1, 19-20), the handle comprising a first portion and a second portion rotatably coupled to the first portion (claims 1-20), the second portion having a front wall extending outside of a chamber of the first portion; and a drawer release coupled to the drawer (claims 1, 19-20), the drawer release comprising a locking element (“second locking element”) having a bottom surface that engages the second portion (at least claims 1-3), wherein a pushing motion applied to the front wall moves the drawer release between a first orientation in which the locking element engages the flange and the drawer is prevented from sliding relative to the rail, and a second orientation, in which the locking element is spaced apart from the flange and the drawer is slidable relative to the rail (claims 1, 19-20), wherein the locking element includes a first lever and a second lever that is coupled to the first lever, and wherein the first lever is coupled to the second lever by a wire.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,919,483 (Hanley ‘483).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the overlap in scope between the patented claims and the claims in this application renders obvious the claims in this application.
With respect to claim 21: Hanley ‘483 makes obvious a drawer release (“drawer assembly” in at least claims 1, 19-20) comprising: a rail (“member”) including a flange (“first locking element” in claims 1, 19-20; “flange” in claim 17); a drawer comprising a frame and a handle coupled to the frame (claims 1, 19-20), the handle comprising a first portion and a second portion rotatably coupled to the first portion (claims 1-20), the second portion having a front wall extending outside of a chamber of the first portion; and a drawer release coupled to the drawer (claims 1, 19-20), the drawer release comprising a locking element (“second locking element”) having a bottom surface that engages the second portion (at least claims 1-3), wherein a pushing motion applied to the front wall moves the drawer release between a first orientation in which the locking element engages the flange and the drawer is prevented from sliding relative to the rail, and a second orientation, in which the locking element is spaced apart from the flange and the drawer is slidable relative to the rail (claims 1, 19-20).
With respect to claims 22-38: The claims are rejected at least via dependency.
With respect to claim 39: Hanley ‘483 makes obvious a drawer release (“drawer assembly” in at least claims 1, 19-20) comprising: a rail (“member”) including a flange (“first locking element” in claims 1, 19-20; “flange” in claim 17); a drawer comprising a frame and a handle coupled to the frame (claims 1, 19-20), the handle comprising a first portion and a second portion rotatably coupled to the first portion (claims 1-20), the second portion having a front wall extending outside of a chamber of the first portion; and a drawer release coupled to the drawer (claims 1, 19-20), the drawer release comprising a locking element (“second locking element”) having a bottom surface that engages the second portion (at least claims 1-3), wherein a pushing motion applied to the front wall moves the drawer release between a first orientation in which the locking element engages the flange and the drawer is prevented from sliding relative to the rail, and a second orientation, in which the locking element is spaced apart from the flange and the drawer is slidable relative to the rail (claims 1, 19-20), wherein the locking element directly engages the flange when the drawer release is in the first orientation (claims 1, 19-20), and wherein the second engages the drawer release when the drawer release is in both the first and second orientations (claims 1, 19-20).
With respect to claim 40: Hanley ‘483 makes obvious a drawer release (“drawer assembly” in at least claims 1, 19-20) comprising: a rail (“member”) including a flange (“first locking element” in claims 1, 19-20; “flange” in claim 17); a drawer comprising a frame and a handle coupled to the frame (claims 1, 19-20), the handle comprising a first portion and a second portion rotatably coupled to the first portion (claims 1-20), the second portion having a front wall extending outside of a chamber of the first portion; and a drawer release coupled to the drawer (claims 1, 19-20), the drawer release comprising a locking element (“second locking element”) having a bottom surface that engages the second portion (at least claims 1-3), wherein a pushing motion applied to the front wall moves the drawer release between a first orientation in which the locking element engages the flange and the drawer is prevented from sliding relative to the rail, and a second orientation, in which the locking element is spaced apart from the flange and the drawer is slidable relative to the rail (claims 1, 19-20), wherein the locking element includes a first lever and a second lever that is coupled to the first lever, and wherein the first lever is coupled to the second lever by a wire.
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(s) 25 is/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.
With respect to claim 25: The recitation “the first arm being positioned between the first arm and the third arm” is unclear and/or indefinite. It is unclear how the first arm can be positioned between itself and the third arm, as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 21-40 would be allowable if 1) claim 25 is rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action; and 2) a Terminal Disclaimer is filed to overcome the double patenting rejections made in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
The double patenting rejections were not overcome by the latest claim amendments, and are therefore maintained in this Office action.
The rejections under 112(a), 112(b), 102, and 103 made in the previous Office action are withdrawn, as being overcome by the latest claim amendments. This renders moot the Applicant’s arguments against said rejections.
The latest claim amendments necessitate the new rejection under 112(b) made in this Office action.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ANDREW ROERSMA whose telephone number is (571)270-3185. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00.
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.
/ANDREW ROERSMA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights