DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims and accompanying arguments, filed July 17, 2026, with respect to the 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn. Upon further review and consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is set forth with regards to the amended claim scope of Claim 1. Consequently, applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior mapped rejections are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
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, 3 & 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krietzman [US 5,997,117] in view of Hofmann [US 8,944,533]. Krietzman teaches of a computer cabinet (fig. 15), comprising: a main frame (21) having two subframes (viewed as the top and bottom rectangular frames – fig. 1 for instance) and four frame beams (23), each subframe includes four subframe beams (25’s, 27, 29) and four frame joints (31’s), each subframe beam having one frame joint connected to opposite ends (shown); the four subframe beams and the four frame joints of each subframe are connected to each other as a single-piece structure in the end product (fig.1); and support beams attached to the main frame (33’s, 35’s), wherein each frame joint is a hollow structure (note fig. 5) having a joint body (central body) and a joining member (horizontal and vertical lugs), the joining member extends from the joint body in a direction perpendicular to the subframe beams connected to the corresponding frame joint (fig. 2), and each frame beam has an elongated channel (51) positioned within each frame beam to connect with the respective joining member extending from the joint body, each frame beam and each subframe beam has two edges (such as 45, 47) extending away from the frame beam and the subframe beam respectively, the two edges being extending away from each other (fig. 3), and a plurality of frame holes (43) formed on each edge and used for attaching the support beams. Krietzman teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed cabinet as outlined {mapped} above; but does not show the beams and joints as being integrally formed by a die casting or molding process. As to this aspect, note the following: The method of forming the device, i.e., by a die casting or molding process, is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself within a product claim; therefore, the limitation has not been given patentable weight. In addition, Hofmann is cited as an evidence reference for the known use of one-piece die-cast parts (col. 10) used in the formation of a frame (fig. 1) for a rack (10) in an analogous art. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Krietzman so as to employ die cast parts in view of Hofmann’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by utilizing known manufacturing techniques in the formation of the cabinet frame in order to satisfy a need or preference stipulated by an end user. Furthermore, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure of the prior art in order to incorporate an “integrally formed” arrangement as dictated by the needs and/or preferences of a user, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has previously been formed in two or more pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. As to Claim 3, a cross-section of the elongate channel matches with a cross-sectional profile of the respective joining member so that the beam frame and the respective joining member can be tightly joined together when the joining member is connected with the elongated channel (as would be the case with a slip fit coupling). As to Claim 5, each frame beam is an aluminum extrusion beam (col. 4, lines 19-22). As to Claim 6, the two subframes are top and bottom portions of the main frame (as previously identified). As to Claim 7, the two subframes can be now viewed as the front (combined 23’s & 27’s) and rear (combined (23’s & 29’s) portions of the main frame with the frame beams being elements (25) in this representative embodiment. As to Claim 8, the two subframes can be now viewed as the left (combined leftmost 23’s & 25’s) and right (combined rightmost (23’s & 25’s) portions of the main frame with the frame beams being elements (27’s, 29’s) in this representative embodiment
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krietzman and Hofmann et al., and further in view of Neri [US 4,691,970]. The combined prior art teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed cabinet as outlined {mapped} above, but does not show a joining hole in the joining member to mate with a frame beam hole for accepting a fastener as prescribed by applicant. As to this feature, Neri is cited as an evidence reference for the known technique of providing a joining member (4) with at least one joining hole (25), and a frame beam (3) with at least one frame beam hole (24) that is positioned on a side wall of an elongated channel and corresponds to a respective joining hole of a joining member connected with the elongated channel of the frame beam, whereby a fastener (screw) is inserted into the corresponding frame beam hole and the joining hole to join the frame joint and the frame beam together to form a frame (6) of a cabinet (1) in an analogous art. 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 modified the device of the prior art so as to incorporate mating holes with a fastener in view of Neri’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 adjoining members of a frame are positively coupled in place without accidental decoupling of the members due to the fastener and frame members connection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-13 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.
Pending amendments to the claims in order to achieve an allowable claim set, the withdrawn claims (Claims 14-20) would need to be cancelled if the allowable independent claim is not generic.
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 JAMES O HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6866. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 am - 4:30 pm.
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.
JOH
July 27, 2026
/James O Hansen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights