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 Final Office action from the examiner in charge of this application in response to the Amendment filed on 9/9/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 8-10, 13 and 17-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2002/0101143 to Crooks et al (hereinafter Crooks) in view of USP 11375810 to Chen et al (hereinafter Chen) and USP 8911037 to Hightower.
Crooks discloses (Claim 1). A combination, comprising: (a) a ball bearing drawer slide bracket 16, comprising: a vertical panel with upper and lower edges, the vertical panel having a first height; a nub (such as shown in Fig. 10) extending from a first side of the vertical panel; and a generally C-shaped channel 19 fixed to and extending forwardly from the vertical panel 18; wherein the ball bearing drawer slide bracket 16 is a unitary member and a base 15 formed of a polymeric material ([0011]); and (b) a ball bearing drawer slide 26,26’, wherein one end of the ball bearing drawer slide 26,26’ is received in the generally C-shaped channel 19; (Claim 2). The ball bearing bracket 16 defined in Claim 1, wherein the C-shaped channel comprises a vertical wall, a floor attached to a lower end of the vertical wall, a ceiling attached to an upper end of the vertical wall, and upper and lower lips attached to, respectively, the ceiling and the floor (such as shown in Fig. 6); (Claim 8). The ball bearing bracket 16 defined in Claim 1, in combination with a mounting bracket 15 (such as shown in Figs. 8-9), the mounting bracket 15 comprising: a main panel having front and rear surfaces, upper and lower edges, and opposed side edges; an L-shaped upper flange 17 mounted to the front surface of the main panel; an L-shaped lower flange 17’ mounted to the front surface of the main panel substantially parallel to the upper flange 17; a recess 22 in the main panel positioned between the upper flange 17 and the lower flange 17’; and means 11-13’ for mounting the main panel to a cabinet wall 20 so that the rear surface confronts a rear wall 20 of a cabinet; and wherein the nub of the ball bearing bracket 16 is received in the recess 22, the upper edge of the vertical panel 18 engages the upper flange 17, and the lower edge of the vertical panel 18 engages the lower flange 17’; (Claim 9). The combination defined in Claim 8, wherein the C-shaped channel 19 comprises a vertical wall, a floor attached to a lower end of the vertical wall, a ceiling attached to an upper end of the vertical wall, and upper and lower lips attached to, respectively, the ceiling and the floor (such as shown in Fig. 6).
The differences being that Crooks fails to clearly disclose the limitations in (i) Claim 1 of a rear wall positioned generally parallel to and fixed relative to the vertical panel; and a generally C-shaped channel fixed to and extending forwardly from the rear wall (instead of the vertical panel 18); (ii) Claims 3 and 10; (iii) Claims 6 and 13; (iv) Claim 1 of the rear wall being spaced apart from the vertical panel, and the generally C-shaped channel having a second height that exceeds the first height; (v) Claim 1 of wherein the ball bearing drawer slide bracket 16 is formed of a polymeric material; (vi) Claims 17-18.
Regarding (i)-(iii), Chen discloses a ball bearing drawer slide bracket 24, comprising: a vertical panel with upper and lower edges 36,38,40; a nub 42,44 extending from a first side of the vertical panel; a rear wall positioned generally parallel to and fixed relative to the vertical panel; an extension portion 46 fixed to and extending forwardly from the rear wall; wherein the nub 42,44 is eccentrically positioned on the vertical panel; a web of braces that attached the rear wall to the vertical panel in order to increase the overall strength of the slide bracket 24.
Regarding (iv) and (v), Hightower discloses (Claim 1) A ball bearing drawer slide bracket, comprising (such as shown in Figs. 2, 5-6, 10 and 12, attached marked-up copy): a vertical panel with upper and lower edges, the vertical panel having a first height; a nub (col. 6, line 53) extending from a first side of the vertical panel; a rear wall positioned generally parallel to and fixed relative to the vertical panel, the rear wall being spaced apart from the vertical panel; and a generally C-shaped channel fixed to and extending forwardly from the rear wall, the generally C-shaped channel having a second height that exceeds the first height; wherein the ball bearing drawer slide bracket is formed of a polymeric material (col. 5, lines 5-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious and well within the level of one skilled in the art, in view of Chen and Hightower, to modify Crooks to include the limitations in (i) Claim 1 of a rear wall positioned generally parallel to and fixed relative to the vertical panel; and a generally C-shaped channel fixed to and extending forwardly from the rear wall (instead of the vertical panel 18); (ii) Claims 3 and 10 of wherein the nub is eccentrically positioned on the vertical panel; (iii) Claims 6 and 13 of further comprising a web of braces that attaches the rear wall to the vertical panel; (iv) Claim 1 of the rear wall being spaced apart from the vertical panel, and the generally C-shaped channel having a second height that exceeds the first height; (v) Claim 1 of wherein the ball bearing drawer slide bracket is formed of a polymeric material with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the overall versatility of the ball bearing drawer slide bracket.
Regarding (vi) Claims 17-18, since it is well known in the art that drawer slides come in various sizes, it would have been obvious and well within the level of one skilled in the art to modify Crooks, as modified, to include the limitations in Claim 17 of wherein the C-shaped channel is between about 1 to 3.125 inches in height and between about 0.25 to 0.75 inches in width, and Claim 18 of wherein the C-shaped channel is between about 1.8 to 1.85 inches in height and between about 0.42 to 0.45 inches in width with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the overall versatility of the ball bearing drawer slide bracket.
Claim(s) 4-5, and 11-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crooks, as modified, as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of US 2005/0264146 to Fitz.
Crooks, as modified, discloses all the elements as discussed above including the limitations in Claims 5 and 12 of a vertical rib extending between the upper and lower lips (see attached marked-up copy). The differences being that Crooks, as modified, fails to clearly disclose the limitations in Claims 4 and 11.
However, Fitz discloses a ball bearing drawer slide bracket 18 comprising: a vertical panel 36 with upper and lower edges; a generally C-shaped channel fixed to and extending forwardly from the vertical panel; wherein the C-shaped channel comprises a vertical wall 36, a floor 38 attached to a lower end of the vertical panel 36, a ceiling 38 attached to an upper end of the vertical panel, and upper and lower lips 38c-d attached to, respectively, the ceiling and the floor; upper and lower gussets (see attached marked-up copy) that extend between the C-shaped channel and the vertical panel 26.
Therefore, it would have been obvious and well within the level of one skilled in the art, in view of Fits, to modify Crooks, as modified, to include the limitations in Claims 4 and 11 of further comprising upper and lower gussets that extend between the C-shaped channel and the rear wall with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the overall versatility of the ball bearing bracket.
Claim(s) 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crooks in view of Chen, Hightower and Fitz.
Crooks discloses (Claim 15). A ball bearing drawer slide bracket 16, comprising: a vertical panel 18 with upper and lower edges, the vertical panel having a first height; a nub extending from a first side of the vertical panel 18; a generally C-shaped channel 19 fixed to and extending forwardly from the vertical panel 18; the C-shaped channel comprising a vertical wall, a floor attached to a lower end of the vertical wall, a ceiling attached to an upper end of the vertical wall, and upper and lower lips attached to, respectively, the ceiling and the floor; and a vertical rib extending between the upper and lower lips (see attached marked-up copy); wherein the ball bearing drawer slide bracket is a unitary member.
The differences being that Crooks fails to clearly disclose the limitations in (i) Claim 15 of a web of braces extending from a second, opposite side of the vertical panel 18; a rear wall positioned generally parallel to and fixed relative to the vertical panel via the web of braces; the generally C-shaped channel fixed to and extending forwardly from the rear wall (instead of the vertical panel 18); (ii) Claim 15 of upper and lower gussets that extend between the C-shaped channel and the rear wall and the vertical rib extending between the upper and lower gussets; (iii) Claim 16; (iv) Claim 15 of the generally C-shaped channel having a second height that exceeds the first height; (v) Claim 15 of wherein the ball bearing drawer slide bracket 16 is formed of a polymeric material.
Regarding (i) and (iii), Chen discloses a ball bearing drawer slide bracket 24, comprising: a vertical panel with upper and lower edges 36,38,40; a nub 42,44 extending from a first side of the vertical panel; a rear wall positioned generally parallel to and fixed relative to the vertical panel; an extension portion 46 fixed to and extending forwardly from the rear wall; wherein the nub 42,44 is eccentrically positioned on the vertical panel; a web of braces that attached the rear wall to the vertical panel in order to increase the overall strength of the slide bracket 24.
Regarding (ii), Fitz discloses a ball bearing drawer slide bracket 18 comprising: a vertical panel 36 with upper and lower edges; a generally C-shaped channel fixed to and extending forwardly from the vertical panel; wherein the C-shaped channel comprises a vertical wall 36, a floor 38 attached to a lower end of the vertical panel 36, a ceiling 38 attached to an upper end of the vertical panel, and upper and lower lips 38c-d attached to, respectively, the ceiling and the floor; upper and lower gussets (see attached marked-up copy) that extend between the C-shaped channel and the vertical panel 26.
Regarding (iv) and (v), Hightower discloses (Claim 1) A ball bearing drawer slide bracket, comprising (such as shown in Figs. 2, 5-6, 10 and 12, attached marked-up copy): a vertical panel with upper and lower edges, the vertical panel having a first height; a nub (col. 6, line 53) extending from a first side of the vertical panel; a rear wall positioned generally parallel to and fixed relative to the vertical panel, the rear wall being spaced apart from the vertical panel; and a generally C-shaped channel fixed to and extending forwardly from the rear wall, the generally C-shaped channel having a second height that exceeds the first height; wherein the ball bearing drawer slide bracket is formed of a polymeric material (col. 5, lines 5-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious and well within the level of one skilled in the art, in view of Chen, Fitz and Hightower, to modify Crooks to include the limitations in (i) Claim 15 of a web of braces extending from a second, opposite side of the vertical panel 18; a rear wall positioned generally parallel to and fixed relative to the vertical panel via the web of braces; the generally C-shaped channel fixed to and extending forwardly from the rear wall (instead of the vertical panel 18); (ii) Claim 15 of upper and lower gussets that extend between the C-shaped channel and the rear wall and a vertical rib extending between the upper and lower gussets; (iii) Claim 16 of wherein the nub is eccentrically positioned on the vertical panel; (iv) Claim 15 of the generally C-shaped channel having a second height that exceeds the first height; (v) Claim 15 of wherein the ball bearing drawer slide bracket is formed of a polymeric material with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the overall versatility of the ball bearing drawer slide bracket.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s arguments on page 9 that neither Crooks nor Chen discloses use of the bracket in conjunction with a ball bearing drawer slide, the examiner, again, respectfully take the position that the limitations “a ball bearing drawer slide bracket” fails to provide adequate structural limitations in defining the structures of a ball bearing drawer slide in order to distinguish from the prior art of record. In response to applicant’s argument on page 9 that the term “ball bearing slide” being directed to a specific type of drawer slide, the examiner respectfully take the position that such allegation is not persuasive, since each of the following prior art discloses a ball bearing slide having very different structures: US 2016/0278521 to Chen; USP 6619772 to Dierbeck; USP 4348063 to Chambers; USP 3950040 to Fall; and USP 3418026 to Ericson. Further, since it is an apparatus/article claim, the claim must distinguish from the prior art of record in term of structures.
In response to applicant’s argument on page 10-12, that there is no motivation to modify Crooks, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the examiner respectfully take the position that by modifying Crooks to include a rear wall would at least increase the overall load support of the bracket, thus increasing the overall versatility of the bracket. The question of being more financially costly and would increase the depth of the bracket thus causing a proportional decrease in the size of the drawer would base on the design specification and engineering design choice. Further, it is not clear how it is possible for the applicant to determine the slide of Crooks is an epoxy drawer slide and does not need adding a rear wall. As noted by the examiner, the prior art listed in the above paragraph clearly shows ball bearing slides having very different structures.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and shows structures similar to various elements of applicant’s disclosure.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HANH VAN TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6868. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30.
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 on (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.
HVT
October 1, 2025
/HANH V TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
PNG
media_image1.png
1209
975
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
648
903
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
646
799
media_image3.png
Greyscale