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 is the First Office action on the Merits from the examiner in charge of this application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig(s) 9A and 9B include three-dimensional shading (grayscale) and are not simply black line drawings (see the cited references for examples). Per MPEP 608.02(VII)(A), “Black and white drawings are normally required in utility patent applications. India ink, or its equivalent that secures solid black lines, must be used for drawings.” Moreover, per MPEP 608.02(VII)(B), “Black And White Photographs And Grayscale Drawings” are only acceptable “in lieu of India ink drawings . . . to illustrate inventions which are incapable of being accurately or adequately depicted by India ink drawings” (emphasis added). Examples of such situations include “electrophoresis gels, blots, (e.g., immunological, western, Southern, and northern), autoradiographs, cell cultures (stained and unstained), histological tissue cross sections (stained and unstained), animals, plants, in vivo imaging, thin layer chromatography plates, crystalline structures, metallurgical microstructures, textile fabrics, grain structures and, in a design patent application, ornamental effects.” The structure disclosed in the instant application is not “incapable of being accurately or adequately depicted by India ink drawings,” and clearly does not fall into any of the above categories. Applicant is therefore required to furnish line drawing(s) in place of the aforementioned shaded drawings.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims contain numerous grammatical errors and inconsistencies that should be reviewed for clarity and proper claim construction. In particular, several grammatical issues appear to result from translation from another language including but not limited to:
Claim 1 (page 1, lines 3-4) the drawers “each slidably mounting”
Claim 1 (page 1, line 9) the top/bottom stoppage piece “being secured”
Claim 1 (page 1, lines 25-28), the recitation of “the coil spring of the first compressed level being compressible further to the second compressed level providing a moveable space within the canal for one of the spacers to displace away from the pivot base upon the open position adapted by the corresponding locking assembly and vice versa, the second;”
Claim 1 (page 2, lines 10-14), the recitation of “pushing the latch towards the back of the cabinet using the actuator leading to moving of the dowel from the upper section to the lower section displacing the track and the downstream locking assembly within the canal downwardly to fill the void while physically engaging the locking cams to the trigger.”
Claim 2, the recitation of “the spacer comprises a wedge shaped on the planar surface to contact with a surface profile carved around at least a portion of a circumference of the locking cam that sliding the wedge against the surface profile yanks the spacer progressively away from the pivot base”
Claim 3, the recitation of “to abut onto the wedge and stop the wedge from moving beyond upon resuming the close position by the locking cam”
Claim 4, the recitation of “wherein the first bump of a topmost locking assembly of the plurality of the locking assembly protruding further upward forming an arm to engage with the latch such that…”
Claim 5, the recitation of “at which the wedge resting on the locking cam upon the locking cam adapts the open position.”
“the locking assembly” should be in the plural form “the locking assemblies” in claim 1 (page 1, lines 24 and page 2, line 12) and claim 10
Claims 1 and 10 contain an unnecessary closing parenthesis
The examples above are not exhaustive. The claims should be reviewed in their entirety and revised as necessary to address grammatical issues and improve clarity. 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.
Claims 1-10 are 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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-9 recite several limitations such as:
“the trigger” in claim 1 (page 2, lines 13-14) and claim 9
“the spacer” in claim 2
“the planar surface” in claim 2; Note that “a planar surface of the latch” which is different from the planar surface of claim 2 is recited in claim 1.
“the locking cam” in claims 2-3 and 5-7
“the wedge” in claim 3 and 5-6
“the surface profile” in claims 3 and 5
“the arm” in claim 8
There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. Note that there is a plurality of triggers, locking cams, and spacers recited in claim 1, therefore there are also a plurality of planar surfaces, wedges, and surface profiles since each spacer appears to have a planar surface/wedge and each locking cam appears to have a surface profile.
Claims 2-10 are rejected for depending upon a rejected claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art is Lampei (U.S. Pat. No. 12428875).
Lampei discloses an interlocking mechanism (drawer locking arrangement 200) for a cabinet of drawers (chest 2 with drawers 5) comprising: a track defining a canal (guising rail 201), a top stoppage piece with a dowel (driver 210 with protrusion 211), a trigger on each drawer (pin 8) for interacting with a plurality of locking assemblies which slide along the track and comprise rotating locking cams (locking members 204) which move between open and closed positions corresponding to the opening and closing of a respective drawer (Col. lines 8-11, “the pin 8 will cause the locking member 204 to pivot, whereby the engagement between the pin 8 and the fingers 205 will be released, thereby allowing the drawer to be pulled out”), a spacer (pusher 208), connection rods (rods 209), a coil spring (spring 203), and a latch (bracket member 120) slidably mounted to the cabinet; and the interlocking mechanism (200) is at an inactivated state (Fig. 4C) which insertion of the drawers aligns the trigger (8) of each inserted drawers with the corresponding locking cam (204) free from any physical engagement (Fig. 4C shows locking members 204 are in a raised position, the pin 8 is aligned with but not engages with locking member 204).
However, Lampei fails to disclose the limitations:
“a bottom stoppage piece, at least one connector;
at least one connection rod joining a preceding locking assembly to an immediate succeeding locking assembly using the connector of each locking assembly;
the latch groove comprising an upper section inclining towards a lower section through an inclined section;
an actuator attached to an external sidewall of a topmost drawer to engage with the latch upon insertion of the topmost drawer into the cabinet for a first time;
… wherein the interlocking mechanism is activated by way of inserting the topmost drawer into the cabinet for the first time, after insertion of the rest of the drawers, pushing the latch towards the back of the cabinet using the actuator leading to moving of the dowel from the upper section to the lower section displacing the track and the downstream locking assembly within the canal downwardly to fill the void while physically engaging the locking cams to the trigger.”
Claim 1 of the instant application recites a latch with a thorough hole slidably mounted to the cabinet and driven by an actuator attached to an external sidewall of the topmost drawer. The latch is slidable from a first, inactive position in which the locking cams are aligned but not engaged with the triggers of each drawer to a second, active position in which the entire track is moved downward to allow for engagement between the locking cams and triggers.
While the locking arrangement of Lampei is similarly slidable between a first, inactive position (Fig. 4C) and a second, active position (Fig. 4A) via a latch (bracket member 120), the bracket member 120 is not actuated via a drawer. The bracket member is an anchoring bracket securable to another structure, such as a building wall, so that the cabinet is prevented from tipping. Pushing the lever towards the back of the cabinet to anchor it to a wall also drives the locking arrangement upward so that the drawer pins are completely free from the locking members so that all of the drawers are movable out of the cabinet at any given time. Based on the configuration, it would not be obvious to modify the bracket member to be drawer actuated and cause the locking arrangement to move downward so that the locking members are each engaged with a respective drawer pin since such a modification would be incompatible with the design and purpose of Lampei’s locking arrangement.
While locking arrangements for allowing only a single drawer of a plurality of drawers to be withdrawn from a cabinet are known in the art, the novel inclusion of a drawer-actuated sliding bracket that drives a locking arrangement from a first, inactive position downwardly to a second, active position in which locking cams are engaged with a trigger of a respective drawer is what separates the claimed subject matter and the disclosed subject matter for which there is no teaching to span or case of obviousness.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and all show structures similar to various elements of applicant’s disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH IRENE ARTALEJO whose telephone number is (571)272-4292. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-6.
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.
/E.I.A./ Examiner, Art Unit 3637 /DANIEL J TROY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3637
