DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-12 & 14-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 23, 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the application contains photographs in black and white. Photographs are permitted in utility applications if they are the only practical medium for illustrating the claimed invention. Upon review, the position is put forth that black ink drawings would be readily sufficient in order to convey the claimed subject matter and black and white photographs are not the only practical medium for illustration purposes. As such, the use of illustrated drawings is required in place of the photographs - see 37 CFR 1.84 (a) & (b). 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.
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 1-4 & 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al., [US 2016/0070824] in view of “RTA Cabinet Store Delivery Instruction” [YouTube video] and “How to Assemble RTA Cabinets” [YouTube video]. Yao teaches of a method of on-site installation of a cabinet unit, the method comprising: providing, to a computer-implemented component selection module, floorplan data associated with a target space (providing cabinet designs and usage requirements of placement into computer description language and formulas of functions [0008]), wherein the floorplan data is associated with a complex target space (determining a region to place cabinets [0009]); generating, with the component selection module, a component list including a list of components associated with the cabinet unit (design scheme including contents of cabinets and accessories [0012]-[0013]), wherein the component list can include no more than one side wall corresponding to each side of each cabinet module if so desired by an end user; with the cabinet(s) ultimately being packaged at a manufacturing facility, shipped to a residence and assembled in a customer’s kitchen as is conventional in the art; but Yao does not explicitly detail the generation of a packing plan, the packing of components within the plan, shipping the packed components and then assembling the cabinet on site as prescribed by applicant. As to the generation of a packaging plan of cabinet components and the transportation of such components; RTA Cabinet Store Delivery Instructions {i.e., “RTA Delivery”} is cited as an evidence reference for the known technique of generating a packaging plan with selected components, packing the components and then transporting the packed components to a job site (the components of the job ticket are obtained from inventory, the components are assembled onto a pallet and shrink wrapped by shipping, the packed components are transported and delivered to the job site where inventory of components is accounted for. 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 incorporated a packaging and shipping plan relating to Yao’s generated kitchen design scheme in view of RTA Delivery’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing the logical and expected next phase of the on-site cabinet installation, whereby the packaged components of the generated kitchen design scheme would be bundled and shipped to the end user to arrive for the installation phase. As to the assembling of the cabinet scheme on site; How to Assemble RTA Cabinets {i.e., RTA Assemble} is cited as an evidence reference for the known technique of unpackaging components of a packaged plan and then assembling the components together in order to form cabinet(s) for a desired project within a room (a cabinet unit is assembled piece / component by piece / component unit a complete unit is in place). 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 incorporated a packaging and shipping plan as previously cited, and then an assembly phase relating to Yao’s generated kitchen design scheme in view of RTA Assemble’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing the logical and expected next phase of the on-site cabinet installation, whereby the unpackaged components of the generated kitchen design scheme would be assembled piece by piece in order to form fully assembled cabinet units and then positioned in place in order to complete the build scheme. Regarding Claim 2, as modified, the target space has a complexity that is greater than that of a closet space (the target space is a kitchen which has a higher degree of “complexity” due to the incorporation of appliances, countertops, islands, windows, outlets etc.,). Regarding Claim 3, as modified, the target space is a kitchen space (disclosed). Regarding Claim 4, as modified, the combined prior art teaches of an assembly step performed by a human in order to assemble the cabinet units on site, but does not show a robotic device incorporating an Al-enhanced vision system to perform the assembling. As to this aspect, 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 replace a manual activity (assembling components via human interaction) with an automatic way (assembling components via robotic interaction), since the court has held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity, which accomplished the same result, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. In re Venner, 262 F. 2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). Additionally, administrative notice is taken of the known use of vision systems combined with robotic devices in order to manufacture / assembly components. Accordingly, providing a robotic device with vision assisting system is likely not the product of innovation, but of ordinary skill in the art and common sense as the desired outcome would yield a predictable result, i.e., an automated means by which components can be assembled. Regarding Claim 7, as modified, the component list can include two opposing panels (such as opposing side panels as shown in RTA Assemble), one including a first dado (disclosed as a dado) having a lower surface, the other including a second dado (disclosed as a dado) having an upper surface, and the component list can include a component (noted as a back / rear wall of the cabinet – RTA Assemble) configured to interface with the first and second dados. The combined prior art shows the dados and component configuration, along with lower grooved surfaces, but does not specifically entail the second dado having a greater depth than that of the first dado. As to this feature, the position is taken that it would have been an obvious matter of personal preference to vary the shape or size of an element or to vary the distances between elements depending upon the needs and/or preferences of the user, with a reasonable expectation of success, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size or configuration of a component. A change of this degree is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Such a modification would enable the component to slide further into one dado as it is positioned in between the two opposing dados thereby enhancing the ease in which the component can be inserted / removed from the paired slotted coupling. Regarding Claim 8, as modified, the component list would inherently include a toe-kick panel, with at least one side panel having a notch / cutout for accepting the toe-kick panel in a recessed manner as is conventional in the art (note the figures within US 5,277,487 by way of example showing such a notch / cutout); but the aspect of a circular cut-out provided along a corner is not disclosed. As to this feature, the criticality of the circular cut-out limitation appears to be arbitrary, a matter of personal design and lacking a problem to be solved. In this instance, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have good reasons to pursue either a square cut in order to perfectly mate up with the top squared edge of the toe-kick panel without having a space or gap present between the mating notch / cutout of the receiving panel after final assembly or a circular cut along the corner so as to provide for inconsistencies within the toe-kick panel’s top edge or irregularities of the notch / cutout in order to achieve a level mounting of the toe-kick panel. Accordingly, providing either a square cut or circular cut-out along a corner above the toe-kick panel is likely not the product of innovation, but of ordinary skill in the art and common sense as the desired outcome would yield a predictable result, i.e., a means by which to mount a toe-kick panel to the bottom side of a cabinet unit as dependent upon the trueness of the toe-kick panel and/or the mating notch along the receiving panel.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al., RTA Delivery, RTA Assemble and further in view of Farjamrad [US 11,058,222]. The combined prior art teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed method of an on-site cabinet installation; but does not specifically show the use of a bracket configured to mount a panel of the cabinet unit onto a wall as prescribed by applicant. As to this aspect, Farjamrad is cited as an evidence reference for the known technique of utilizing a mounting bracket (102) that is to be secured to a wall (101) via a planar first portion (120), the bracket including a second planar portion (118) configured at an angle of approximately 45 degrees relative to the planar first portion (shown in fig. 4b), wherein at least one panel (such as (104, 105) for instance) of a cabinet unit (103) is provided with a cut-out (107) configured to receive the bracket and allow the panel to remain in place during assembly / hanging of the cabinet unit upon the wall 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 incorporated a mounting bracket during the final assembling of the cabinet unit within the target space in view of Farjamrad’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing an easy and convenient means by which an assembled cabinet unit can be hung upon a wall (ensuring a stable coupled connection), aligned with adjacent cabinet units (such as by shifting the cabinet unit left or right along the bracket), and then finally rigidly secured to the wall (such as by affixed screws) in order to complete a finished kitchen design scheme.
Claims 6 & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al., RTA Delivery, RTA Assemble and further in view of McCowan et al., [US 3,851,938]. The combined prior art teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed method of an on-site cabinet installation; but does not specifically show at least one panel having a slot formed therein with a resilient member as prescribed by applicant. As to this aspect, McCowan is cited as an evidence reference for the known technique providing a cabinet unit (22) with a panel (24) having a slot (40) formed therein and a resilient member (54) configured to be seated within the slot to provide compression on a surface of a panel edge (48) inserted within the slot 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 incorporated a panel with slot and resilient member configuration within a cabinet unit of the prior art in view of McCowan’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 additional panels (such as shelving / partition panels) can be snugly held in place within an interior space of the cabinet unit as dependent upon the needs and/or preferences of an end user.
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 aspects / methods regarding on-site installations of a cabinet unit.
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. 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
April 1, 2026
/James O Hansen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637