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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 22 January 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 19, the recitation “of blades” should be “of said blades”.
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 16, the recitation “of blades” should be “of said blades”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 13, 19-20, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,138,176 (Cowdroy).
With respect to claim 1: Cowdroy discloses a drawer sliding system for a drawer (drawer 21), comprising at least two parts (at least rail element 10 and slider element 24) being moveable relative each other and adapted for together forming a connection between the drawer and an associated cabinet (“surrounding frame” @ col. 1, line 7; “inner wall 20 of a drawer recess” @ col. 2, line 33; the “drawer frame” in the claims), wherein a first part of said at least two parts (rail element 10) comprises at least one sliding surface (one or more of the rounded portions 16-19), wherein a second part of said at least two parts (slider element 24) is provided with at least one sliding member (at least one of the flanges 26-29), an interface between a continuous sliding surface of the at least one sliding surface and the at least one sliding member (Fig. 6: one claimed “interface” is between one of the rounded portions 16-19 and the ridge(s) formed by grooves 37) forms a linear plain bearing to allow for linear movement in a sliding direction of the at least one sliding member along a longitudinal axis of the continuous sliding surface (slider element 24 slides linearly along the longitudinal axis of rail element 10), wherein the part of said at least one sliding member being in contact with the continuous sliding surface is configured as rows of adjacent, side-by-side blades (“triangular ridges” @ col. 3, lines 5-6; said ridges formed between adjacent grooves 37 in Figs. 2 and 6), each said blade forming an individual contact point (“line contact support, at the ends of the triangular ridges” @ col. 3, lines 5-6) in contact with the continuous sliding surface and extending in the sliding direction.
In the embodiment of Figs. 1-7, Cowdroy’s slider element 24 does not meet “wherein a total number of blades is ten or fewer” as claimed. The slider element 24 includes more than 10 triangular ridges.
Cowdroy col. 1, lines 58-60 disclose that the embodiments shown are preferred embodiments, and are made by way of example only. Cowdroy col. 4, lines 40-44 disclose that although specific examples have been described, the invention may be embodied in other forms without departing from the scope thereof.
Cowdroy col. 1, lines 4-37 teach that the primary purpose of the invention is to provide improved load carrying capacity of the drawer without significantly reducing the available drawer width. A plurality of flanges (flanges 26-29 of slider element 24; flanges 12-15 of rail element 10) on the slider (element 24) and rail (element 10) are what provide the increased load carrying capacity without substantially increasing the lateral width of the unit with a corresponding reduction in available drawer width (col. 3, lines 45-55).
The distal enlargement (rounded portion 16-19) on the rail flanges (flanges 12-15) ensure that line contact is made between the rail (element 10) and the slider (element 24), thereby reducing the frictional force for any given loading (col. 3, lines 45-55). The enlarged portions 16-19 reduce the bearing surface area between the rail 10 and slider 24 (col. 1, lines 53-57). Col. 2, line 66 to col. 3, line 16 and Fig. 6 disclose that the ends of three ridges engage each rounded portion 16-19, which distributes the loading over three regions of line contact.
The Abstract of Cowdroy describes one of the slider (element 24) and rail (element 10) having a pair of first flanges having ridges (like the ridges formed by grooves 37), and a second of the slider 24 and rail 10 having a second flange with an enlarged rounded end (like rounded portion 16-19). Such an embodiment is not shown in the figures.
Col. 1, lines 38-53 disclose an embodiment with one of rail 10 and slider 24 having two flanges, and the other of rail 10 and slider 24 having three flanges to form two U-shaped channels (like channels 30, 31 of Figs. 2 and 6). Such an embodiment is not shown in the figures.
Cowdroy col. 1, lines 54-57 teach that it is preferred (but not outright required) for the rail 10 and slider 24 to have four flanges each. This is what is shown in Figs. 1-7 – with flanges 12-15 on rail element 10, and flanges 26-29 on slider element 24.
The spacer element 38 mounted beside rail element 10 and slider element 24 keeps the drawer 21 laterally centered (Fig. 6 and col. 3, lines 17-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Cowdroy’s rail element 10 to have only one flange and rounded portion, and to modify slider element 24 to have only two flanges with grooves 37 facing each other, in order to form the embodiment disclosed in Cowdroy’s Abstract but not shown in the figures.
In such a modification, each flange of the slider element 24 includes four triangular ridges similarly to the flanges 26-29 of Cowdroy Figs. 1-7. This yields a total of 8 triangular ridges (“blades” as claimed), because there are two flanges on slider element 24.
Additionally or alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify each flange on the slider element 24 to have fewer grooves 37 (and correspondingly fewer triangular ridges), because Cowdroy states that each rounded portion (parts 16-19) is contacted by three ridges (col. 2, line 66 to col. 3, line 16 and Fig. 6). As such, the unused grooves 37 and triangular ridges are not necessary for engagement with the rounded portions.
Eliminating the unused grooves 37 and ridges enables the slide unit to be made thinner, thereby allowing the drawer to be wider. This meets a desire of Cowdroy - to minimize the lateral width of the slide unit and maximize the available drawer width (col. 1, lines 30-37 and col. 3, lines 45-55).
In that the spacer element 38 keeps the drawer 21 centered, it is obvious for a modified (shorter) spacer element 38 to keep the triangular ridges in position on the rounded portions, even when only three ridges per rounded portion are used.
When modifying the embodiment of Figs. 1-7, there would be three ridges for each rounded portion 16 and 19. There would be two ridges for each rounded portion 17 and 18. This is a total of ten ridges (“blades” as claimed).
When modifying an embodiment like the one in the Abstract (slider element 24 having two flanges, rail element 10 having one flange), there would be a total of three ridges so that the single rounded portion of the rail element 10 is engaged by three ridges.
When modifying an embodiment like the one in Cowdroy col. 1, lines 38-53 (slider element 24 having three flanges, rail element 10 having two flanges), there would be a total of six ridges (“blades” as claimed) so that the two rounded portions of the rail element 10 are engaged by three ridges each.
With respect to claim 2: Cowdroy discloses wherein the at least one sliding surface (rounded portion(s) 16-19) is formed on a guiding rail (rail element 10), said guiding rail forming one of said at least two parts.
With respect to claim 3: Cowdroy Figs. 1-7 disclose wherein said guiding rail (rail element 10) is provided with at least two opposite said sliding surfaces located at a vertical distance therebetween (the embodiment of Figs. 1-7 is mounted on the lateral side of drawer 21, so any two of the rounded portions 16-19 have a vertical distance therebetween).
The recitations following “wherein optionally” are not required by the claim as written.
With respect to claim 5: Cowdroy discloses wherein the at least one sliding surface is formed in a C-shaped groove in one of said at least two parts. Flanges 12 and 13 form a C-shaped groove with rail element 10, and rounded portions 16, 17 have sliding surfaces in that C-shaped groove. Flanges 14 and 15 form a C-shaped groove with rail element 10, and rounded portions 18, 19 have sliding surfaces in that C-shaped groove.
With respect to claim 6: Cowdroy discloses wherein the at least one sliding surface (rounded portion(s) 16-19) is formed on a protruding member (flange 12-15) having at least one of an upper sliding surface (rounded portions 16-17 and 19 each form an upper sliding surface), a lower sliding surface (rounded portions 16 and 18-19 each form a lower sliding surface), and a distal sliding surface.
With respect to claim 7: Cowdroy col. 2, lines 46-57 disclose slider element 24 made of plastic material such as nylon. The NPL attached to this Office action shows that nylon inherently is a polymer with amide polar groups, and is a polyamide.
Cowdroy’s disclosed nylon inherently meets “wherein at least part of said at least one sliding member being in contact with the at least one sliding surface is made of a plastic, said plastic comprising a polymer with polar groups, wherein the polar groups are selected from the group consisting of…amide groups…and/or wherein at least the part of said at least one sliding member in contact with the sliding surface is made of a plastic comprising a polymer selected from the group of…bio-based thermoplastic polyesters selected from…polyamides (PA)…” as claimed.
With respect to claim 8: Cowdroy discloses wherein said at least one sliding member is entirety made from a plastic (all of slider element 24 is made of nylon).
With respect to claim 9: Cowdroy, as modified, meets wherein the part of said at least one sliding member being in contact with the at least one sliding surface is configured as the plurality of blades extending in the sliding direction (the triangular ridges extend in the sliding direction).
Cowdroy remains silent as to the dimensions of the triangular ridges, and therefore does not meet and/or make obvious “a length of each said blade, as seen along the sliding direction of the guiding rail, being 2-50 mm” as claimed.
Cowdroy col. 1, lines 4-12 disclose the slider element 24 “is usually a relatively short runner”. Col. 1, lines 54-57 teach a desire to reduce the bearing surface area between the rail and slider. The Abstract describes this as a “narrow contact area”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the triangular ridges to each define a length of 2-50 mm, in order to meet Cowdroy’s desire for low bearing surface area between the rail and slider and/or to form a short runner (slider element 24).
With respect to claim 10: Cowdroy, as modified, meets wherein the part of said at least one sliding member being in contact with the at least one sliding surface is configured as at least two said blades being parallel, displaced, and extending in the sliding direction (the triangular ridges include at least two ridges that are parallel, displaced, and extend in the sliding direction).
Cowdroy remains silent as to the dimensions of the triangular ridges, and therefore does not meet and/or make obvious “a length of each said blade, as seen along the sliding direction of the guiding rail, being 2-50 mm” as claimed.
Cowdroy col. 1, lines 4-12 disclose the slider element 24 “is usually a relatively short runner”. Col. 1, lines 54-57 teach a desire to reduce the bearing surface area between the rail and slider. The Abstract describes this as a “narrow contact area”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the triangular ridges to each define a length of 2-50 mm, in order to meet Cowdroy’s desire for low bearing surface area between the rail and slider and/or to form a short runner (slider element 24).
With respect to claim 13: Cowdroy, as modified, meets wherein the first part of said at least two parts is a guiding rail (rail element 10) being provided with the at least one sliding surface (rounded portion(s) 16-19), the second part of said at least two parts being the at least one sliding member (slider element 24), wherein the guiding rail is provided with a groove receiving the at least one sliding member (flanges 12 and 13 form one groove; flanges 14 and 15 form a second groove), the at least one sliding surface being provided inside said groove (surfaces of rounded portions 16 and 17 are provided in the one groove; surfaces of rounded portions 18 and 19 are provided in the second groove), wherein both upper and lower edges of the groove being provided with respective said sliding surfaces being in sliding contact with upper and lower parts of the at least one sliding member (rounded portions 16 and 17 contact the upper and lower parts of flange 27; rounded portions 18 and 19 contact the upper and lower parts of flange 28).
With respect to claim 19: Cowdroy, as modified, meets a drawer (drawer 21), comprising at least one said drawer sliding system (rail element 10 and slider element 24, as modified).
With respect to claim 20: Cowdroy, as modified, meets wherein one of said at least two parts is a first guiding rail (rail element 10) being connected to an associated cabinet (“surrounding frame” @ col. 1, line 7; “inner wall 20 of a drawer recess” @ col. 2, line 33; the “drawer frame” in the claims), while a second of said at least two parts is a second guiding rail (slider element 24) being connected to the drawer (drawer 21), wherein the at least one sliding surface being arranged on one of the first and second guiding rails (rounded portion(s) 16-19 is/are on rail element 10), and the at least one sliding member being arranged on a second of the first and second guiding rails (the triangular ridges are on slider element 24), and/or wherein the drawer comprises a first sliding system supporting one lateral side of the drawer, and a second sliding system supporting a second lateral side of the drawer (Cowdroy cols. 1-4 disclose the rails and sliders mounted on both sides of the drawer).
With respect to claim 24: By making the same modifications as in the rejections above, Cowdroy, as modified, meets a drawer sliding system for a drawer (drawer 21), comprising at least two parts (at least rail element 10 and slider element 24, as modified) being moveable relative each other and adapted for together forming a connection between the drawer and an associated cabinet (“surrounding frame” @ col. 1, line 7; “inner wall 20 of a drawer recess” @ col. 2, line 33; the “drawer frame” in the claims), wherein a first part of said at least two parts (rail element 10) comprises at least one sliding surface (at least one rounded portion 16-19), wherein a second part of said at least two parts (slider element 24) is provided with at least one sliding member (the two or more flanges), an interface between a continuous sliding surface of the at least one sliding surface and the at least one sliding member (Fig. 6: one claimed “interface” is between one of the rounded portions 16-19 and the ridge(s) formed by grooves 37) forms a linear plain bearing to allow for linear movement in a sliding direction of the at least one sliding member along a longitudinal axis of the continuous sliding surface (slider element 24 slides linearly along the longitudinal axis of rail element 10), wherein the part of said at least one sliding member being in contact with the continuous sliding surface is configured as two or more parallel, laterally displaced blades (the triangular ridges, as modified), each said blade forming an individual contact point in contact with the continuous sliding surface and extending in the sliding direction (each triangular ridge forms a single contact point with a rounded portion), and wherein a total number of the blades is ten or fewer (as explained in the rejection of claim 1).
Claims 4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,138,176 (Cowdroy) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 4,172,625 (Swain).
With respect to claim 4: The embodiment of Cowdroy Figs. 1-7 is a single-extension slide, having only two relatively-movable components, and therefore lacks “an intermediate slide bar” as required by claim 4.
Cowdroy does not disclose “wherein the at least one sliding surface is formed by an intermediate slide bar providing a sliding movement in relation to at least one guiding rail, said at least one guiding rail forming one of said at least two parts” as claimed.
Swain col. 2, lines 51-67 and Figs. 1-7 disclose a slide rail assembly comprising a cabinet rail 11 attached to the interior side wall of a cabinet, a floating rail 12 sliding on the cabinet rail 12, and a drawer slide 13 sliding on the floating rail 12. The drawer slide 13 is attached to a drawer 25. The cabinet rail 11 is identical to the drawer slide 13. The floating rail 12 has c-channels 34 and 44 on opposing faces thereof.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Cowdroy’s mounting arrangement to have a third slide member, in order to provide greater extension capacity (distance) thereto.
In order to modify Cowdroy’s mounting arrangement to have a third slide member, it is obvious to modify Cowdroy’s rail element 10 with additional flange(s) and rounded portion(s) that face the opposite direction as the existing flange(s) and rounded portion(s). These additional flange(s) and rounded portion(s) receive an added one of Cowdroy’s slider elements 24 (similarly to Swain’s rail 11 and slide 13 being identical).
This meets and/or makes obvious “wherein the at least one sliding surface (rounded portion(s)) is formed by an intermediate slide bar (rail element 10, as modified) providing a sliding movement in relation to at least one guiding rail (one of the slider elements 24), said at least one guiding rail forming one of said at least two parts” as claimed.
With respect to claim 12: By making the same modifications as in the rejection of claim 4 above, Cowdroy’s modified mounting arrangement makes obvious wherein the at least two parts being moveable relative each other comprise a first guiding rail (one of the two slider elements 24) being attached to an inner wall of a cabinet (like Swain’s cabinet rail 11), and a second guiding rail (the second of the two slider elements 24) being attached to a drawer (like Swain’s drawer slide 13), wherein the sliding system further comprises an intermediate slide bar (rail element 10, as modified) being movable relative to the first and second guiding rails, and wherein the intermediate slide bar is provided with a first said sliding surface being in sliding contact with a first said sliding member on the first guide rail (one of the rounded portion(s) that contacts the slider element 24 attached to the cabinet) and a second said sliding surface being in sliding contact with a second said sliding member on the second guide rail (one of the rounded portion(s) that contacts the slider element 24 attached to the drawer), or is provided with a first said sliding member being in sliding contact with a first said sliding surface on the first guide rail and a second said sliding member being in sliding contact with a second said sliding surface on the second guiding rail.
Claim 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,138,176 (Cowdroy) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of NPL reference “Enhancement of the Wear Resistance and Microhardness of Aluminum Alloy by Nd:YaG Laser Treatment” (Hussein).
See the file history of U.S. Patent Application 15/757,535 for the IDS dated 06 March 2020. That IDS cites NPL reference “Enhancement of the Wear Resistance and Microhardness of Aluminum Alloy by Nd:YaG Laser Treatment” (Hussein).
With respect to claim 14: Cowdroy col. 2, lines 23-25 discloses rail element 10 made from aluminum. This meets “wherein the at least one sliding surface is made from a material…wherein the material is metal or glass, preferably the material is a metal” as claimed. The recitations following “preferably” are not required by the claim as written.
Cowdroy remains silent as to the Vickers hardness of the aluminum, and therefore does not disclose “having a Vickers hardness of at least 50 MPa” as claimed.
Hussein pages 3-4 discloses aluminum having a Vickers hardness of 98 to 235 kg*f/mm2 (MPa). Hussein discloses decreasing wear rate with increasing hardness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Cowdroy’s rail element 10 to be made of aluminum with Vickers hardness of at least 50 MPa, in order to provide a low wear rate thereto similarly to Hussein’s sliding member.
Claims 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,138,176 (Cowdroy) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 6,696,143 B1 (La Point).
With respect to claim 15: Cowdroy does not disclose “wherein the at least one sliding surface is coated with a lacquer comprising a resin, wherein the resin of the lacquer comprises polar groups selected from hydroxyl groups, carboxylic acid groups, amide groups, cyano groups (nitrile groups), halide groups, sulfide groups, carbamate groups, aldehyde groups, and/or ketone groups” as claimed.
Cowdroy col. 2, lines 23-25 discloses rail element 10 made from aluminum.
La Point discloses an abrasion-resistant coating comprising heat-cured resins applied on a metal surface. The process can involve hydrolysis of halides. Carboxyl groups can be introduced into the polymer via carboxylic acid. Hydroxyls are an alternative to the carboxyl groups. Ketone is a photointiator, helping the resin cure in air or an inert atmosphere.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the rounded portion(s) 16-19 of rail element 10 with La Point’s coating, in order to reduce abrasion of the rounded portion(s) 16-19.
With respect to claim 16: By making the same combination/modification as in the rejection of claim 15, rail element 10 has La Point’s abrasion-resistant coating applied thereto.
This meets and/or makes obvious “wherein the at least one sliding surface is formed…by an aluminum member, having a surface onto which a lacquer is applied, wherein the aluminum member has an anodized oxide surface layer onto which the lacquer is applied, and wherein a surface of the aluminum member has been electrophoretically coated with a resin, and subsequently heat cured to form a lacquer coated on the at least one sliding surface” as recited in claim 16.
Cowdroy, as modified, does not meet “wherein the at least one sliding surface is formed by a plastic profile, or by a steel member, having a surface onto which a lacquer is applied” as claimed.
La Point’s invention can be applied to steel, in addition to the aluminum already mentioned (La Point col. 4, lines 41-56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify rail element 10 to be made of steel coated with La Point’s abrasion-resistant coating, as an obvious variation of the coated aluminum.
Claims 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,138,176 (Cowdroy) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2008/0125338 A1 (Corbett).
With respect to claims 17-18: Cowdroy does not disclose the “lipophilic composition coating” defined by claims 17-18.
Corbett discloses food grade lubricant compositions that are used in slide mechanisms. The base oil of the lubricant can be food grade hydrocarbon oils ([0013]). Corbett [0037] discloses hydrocarbyls as corrosion inhibitors. Corbett [0032]-[0036] discloses fatty acids and glycerides as anti-rust additives.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Cowdroy’s mounting arrangement to include Corbett’s lubricant, because the lubricant is food safe. This enables Cowdroy’s mounting arrangement, with the lubricant applied thereto, to be used in the food industry.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21 and 23 is/are allowed.
Response to Arguments
The claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) made in the previous Office action are withdrawn, as being overcome by the latest claim amendments.
The Applicant’s remarks regarding the rejection of, inter alia, claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are not persuasive, because the grounds of rejection referred to by the Applicant are no longer relied upon. The latest claim amendments necessitate the new grounds of rejection in this Office action.
Conclusion
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